Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of the platforms recently added, armish for one. What advantages do you see from building a DNS server using armish? m
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
It's no very expensive, the electric consumption (I don't know if this expression is ok), the size, ... On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of the platforms recently added, armish for one. What advantages do you see from building a DNS server using armish? m -- Julien Cabillot
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
Hi Julien, It's no very expensive, the electric consumption (I don't know if this expression is ok), the size, ... This also holds true for Via Epia Mini-ITX boards, btw. Plus, most fit in an 1U 19 enclosure or any standard (micro) ATX case. That said, I know nothing of armish. Buhbye... Nico
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On Oct 12, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Cabillot Julien wrote: It's no very expensive, the electric consumption (I don't know if this expression is ok), the size, ... On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 07:31:39AM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of the platforms recently added, armish for one. What advantages do you see from building a DNS server using armish? m And most of the time DNS doesn't require much in the way of resources, at least from my experience. I imagine it could use more resources if you are doing IPV6 and DNSSEC (as it says in the bind manual). Mike
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On 2006/10/12 15:42, Cabillot Julien wrote: It's no very expensive, the electric consumption (I don't know if this expression is ok), the size, ... ... socketed RAM, serial console :-)
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Cabillot Julien wrote: It's no very expensive, the electric consumption (I don't know if this expression is ok), the size, ... On 10/12/06, Mark Bucciarelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP What advantages do you see from building a DNS server using armish? m -- Julien Cabillot Spot On diana
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On 10/8/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote: I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options of course: Intel and AMD. There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst the faster arch's too SNIP isnt the mac going the way of Intel now? all of their newer boxes seem to be Intel now (correct me if i'm wrong), in which case... u shouldnt get a mac, i mean, an Intel. -jf
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On 2006/10/13 02:24, Jeffrey Lim wrote: On 10/8/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote: I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options of course: Intel and AMD. There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst the faster arch's too SNIP isnt the mac going the way of Intel now? all of their newer boxes seem to be Intel now (correct me if i'm wrong), in which case... u shouldnt get a mac, i mean, an Intel. xserve too? that's a pity. at least places like http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/ex-demo.html still sell them.
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. On 10/7/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote: I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options of course: Intel and AMD. There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are more to choose from). Motherboard chipsets also make a *HUGE* difference, of course. For the 64 bit version, which delivers the best relation price/benefits? Nobody can say that unless they know what you think is beneficial. You have to first define what you want, then go looking for something suitable.
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Then go for AMD, they have more instructions then Intel that now try to catch up to them! So, call it more instructions machine per dollar if you like that!
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On 08/10/06, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006/10/07 18:08, Brian wrote: There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are more to choose from). Motherboard chipsets also make a *HUGE* difference, of course. I am looking at upgrading my motherboard and processor. It looks like NVIDIA is still not open source friendly. I saw some blobs on their site for FreeBSD with very restrictive licenses. I am seeing some VIA, SIS, and ATI motherboards that support AM2 sockets as alternatives to NVIDIA. I am looking at upgrading to a dual core amd64 X2 processor. Will this work with bsd.mp? Depends on the motherboard/chipset/bios. Also results may vary depending on which OpenBSD arch you use (e.g. I tried an AMD 8111/8131 based 2U server, running i386 MP kernel it hangs occasionally but has been rock-solid under amd64). And what chipset vendor is the most open with documentation? For the processors using hypertransport (I was going to say AMD processors, but it's used on some PowerPC boxes too) the most open chipset vendor is probably AMD themselves, but they aren't exactly used on desktop motherboards (or even much on server boards these days). Just by searching for the part numbers (e.g. 8111) you quickly find datasheets and information on revisions; any vendor should be making that type of information openly available. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_739_9004,00.html As you see from my example, open docs don't guarantee that everything works, but they make the job of making it work at all a lot easier (and I'm happy enough to have this particular box running the 64-bit kernel). I am leaning towards ATI. I want to support the open vendors with my cash. afaik, they're not particularly open. It may change with the AMD merger, who knows... I have a small pile of motherboards from when I was upgrading my desktop box that didn't really work well enough (I was trying to avoid nvidia of course), in the end I decided to buy whatever I could locally so that I'd return it if there was a problem. All I could find was nvidia, which I wasn't terribly happy about buying, but it worked, size of pile stopped increasing... don't get me wrong, this is not advice to buy from nvidia, it's advice to buy from somewhere where you can easily return the board for a refund if you don't like it :-) How about VIA chipsets, any opinion about boards having those? Say, Asus M2V (Via K8T890) ? (and, I don't know about the AM2 socket/retention mechanism, but if it's anything like S939 be damn careful removing the CPU if you do have to move it between boards...bye bye one 146, thanks for the glue-like thermal compound AMD..!) -- viq
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of the platforms recently added, armish for one. diana
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
I would use them for a X server. It will serve about 128 X clients. On 10/8/06, Diana Eichert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Gustavo Rios wrote: I meant more CPU processing cycles per a given constant amount of money! That's it. Hmmm, before I answer that question I'd like to know what are the intended uses? For example, for a DNS server I would seriously consider some of the platforms recently added, armish for one. diana
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
Gustavo Rios wrote: I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options of course: Intel and AMD. For the 64 bit version, which delivers the best relation price/benefits? Thanks in advance. Why even asked these days! Until Intel come clean, use AMD. I don't understand why you even have to asked that question! If you are true to the Open Source projects and really want to support OpenBSD as well, why don't you advocate the movements with your wallets as well and cast your vote for hardware makers that actually respect your choice of OS! I just don't understand why users still don't get it!!! Best luck in your choice Daniel PS: AMD is better anyway, so you can't go wrong, but vote for your OS of choice and put your money where you mouth should be! Support the REAL open hardware makes and ditch the rest until they get it! Get it???
Re: best hardware plataform for openbsd
On 2006/10/07 19:29, Gustavo Rios wrote: I am evaluating processor hardware for using with openbsd. Two options of course: Intel and AMD. There are more options than just those. macppc and sparc64 are amongst the faster arch's too (and if you don't need out-and-out speed there are more to choose from). Motherboard chipsets also make a *HUGE* difference, of course. For the 64 bit version, which delivers the best relation price/benefits? Nobody can say that unless they know what you think is beneficial. You have to first define what you want, then go looking for something suitable.
