Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
I have a 300 celeron running at 464 @2.0 volts.. Both Linux and Win98 love it.. and so do I. Never had any problems and system runs 24/365. It is much faster then the AMD 475... I have both and perfer the Celeron's speed. Overclocking a Celeron - I know a lot has been written about this in a lot of places but 1 quick question - I know overclocking voids the Intel warranty (in fact I think running dual-Celerons voids the warranty also - I might have read that on Slashdot) but can it actually fry the CPU, or does it just make the system unstable? I have also read (RedHat site perhaps?) that Linux does not take kindly to overclocked systems because it has a faster kernal and therefore more susceptible to system timing problems. Is this still true? Some of you mentioned that SCSI gives a much higher performance than IDE, especially when dealing with multiple requests. IF I have 4 IDE devices on 4 separate channels (as opposed to two), can Linux make a request to each device concurrently? How does this differ from the way SCSI makes requests to drives? For PBen - SLab runs on Linux. Have a look at http://www.llornkcor.com/SLab/SLab.html As the web site says it takes a bit to learn. I am still very much in the learning stage at the moment. I need a month off work so I can sit down and learn. Aaron deRozario
[newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
As a newbie there are a lot of things about Linux and computers in general that I do not yet understand - please bear with me. I have a query about the pros and cons of running multiple processors. I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in Australia the new Abit dual-Celeron boards have hit the shelves. The price for one of these boards packing 2 Celeron-400 processors is considerable less than that for a Pentium 3 - 550 with board. Now I understand that not all programmes work with multiple-processors, however I understand that in a multiple-processor setup one program may be run on processor A, while another is being dealt with by processor B. No doubt this is a major over-simplification. I therefore have a myriad of questions. 1) What standard Linux programmes take advantage of multiple-processors (ie GIMP, X-Windows, KDE) 2) Do productivity suites benefit from multiple processors? If I am running Applix and have several seriously big spreadsheets, a couple of word-processing documents, etc will there be an increase in performance over a single processor - or will performance be negligible? 3) Do programmes such as Blender take advbantage of multiple CPU's (not that I've used it yet but I would like to play with it a bit) 4) Would a dual-Celeron setup give me an overall better performance than the more expensive Pent-III? How noticeable would it be, and to what use is a multiple CPU system best put? I am starting to use a hard-disk recording system called Slab. This program allows the various processses of recording, mixing, FX processing and GUI to be distributed over several CPU's, yielding a performance increase. The author (Nick Copeland) said that this setup has not been tested on a multiple CPU system - so don't get one just to run Slab. As I am potentially in the market for a new system if I can get better performance from dual-Celerons on other programmes I run, I may as well save the money and impress my friends running Win98 with a system that really rocks. On a side note the new Abit board comes with DMA-66 controllers. IF I purchased a DMA-66 enabled hard drive and a DMA-66 m/board will Linux run okay? I think DMA-66 is not scheduled until 2.4. Could I set the board for DMA-33 until 2.4 is released?
Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999, you wrote: As a newbie there are a lot of things about Linux and computers in general that I do not yet understand - please bear with me. I have a query about the pros and cons of running multiple processors. I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in Australia the new Abit dual-Celeron boards have hit the shelves. The price for one of these boards packing 2 Celeron-400 processors is considerable less than that for a Pentium 3 - 550 with board. Now I understand that not all programmes work with multiple-processors, however I understand that in a multiple-processor setup one program may be run on processor A, while another is being dealt with by processor B. No doubt this is a major over-simplification. As I am potentially in the market for a new system if I can get better performance from dual-Celerons on other programmes I run, I may as well save the money and impress my friends running Win98 with a system that really rocks. Win '98 won't work with duel cpu it will only see one of them. You will have to run NT to take advantage of this setup. Ralph *** Remember WhereEver Your Head Goes Your Ass Will Follow!! ***
Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
Even NT on it's own won't necessarily guarantee dual processor working, it all depends on the software. Games would probably not use dual processors, whereas graphics packages, the most common area for multiple CPU's, would. Since you're on a Linux board, I would add that Linux or any Unix derivative will give you the dual processor power you're after with minimal effort, and that would also include stuff running on them, like Quake or similar. The one other thing I would say is that dual processors aren't usually better. If you imagine that they are both sharing a 66Mhz bus (only the brand new Celerons are 100Mhz, and you're back to paying a premium), whereas a P3 would use a 100Mhz on it's own, you can start to see the bottlenecks. Multiple processing also works better with SCSI than IDE, as SCSI can handle multiple requests better. See if you can find an online benchmark test, you may be surprised. I found one which was next to useless, it used 3d Studio max to benchmark, but at least it demonstrates the lack of support for dual processors. - Original Message - From: Ralph |byte-runner | [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3) On Mon, 06 Sep 1999, you wrote: As a newbie there are a lot of things about Linux and computers in general that I do not yet understand - please bear with me. I have a query about the pros and cons of running multiple processors. I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in Australia the new Abit dual-Celeron boards have hit the shelves. The price for one of these boards packing 2 Celeron-400 processors is considerable less than that for a Pentium 3 - 550 with board. Now I understand that not all programmes work with multiple-processors, however I understand that in a multiple-processor setup one program may be run on processor A, while another is being dealt with by processor B. No doubt this is a major over-simplification. As I am potentially in the market for a new system if I can get better performance from dual-Celerons on other programmes I run, I may as well save the money and impress my friends running Win98 with a system that really rocks. Win '98 won't work with duel cpu it will only see one of them. You will have to run NT to take advantage of this setup. Ralph *** Remember WhereEver Your Head Goes Your Ass Will Follow!! ***
Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
Hi Aaron. Win98 won't run dual processors, only Linux, BeOS and NT. You might like to check out a machine Leo Laporte is building on The Screen Savers (www.zdtv.com ). It's got a Abit board with dual 366 Celerons overclocked to 550 each (1.1 GHz!), that's available in the U.S. - Original Message - From: Aaron deRozario [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Mandrake Linux' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 12:16 AM Subject: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3) As a newbie there are a lot of things about Linux and computers in general that I do not yet understand - please bear with me. I have a query about the pros and cons of running multiple processors. I don't know about anywhere else in the world but in Australia the new Abit dual-Celeron boards have hit the shelves. The price for one of these boards packing 2 Celeron-400 processors is considerable less than that for a Pentium 3 - 550 with board. Now I understand that not all programmes work with multiple-processors, however I understand that in a multiple-processor setup one program may be run on processor A, while another is being dealt with by processor B. No doubt this is a major over-simplification. I therefore have a myriad of questions. 1) What standard Linux programmes take advantage of multiple-processors (ie GIMP, X-Windows, KDE) 2) Do productivity suites benefit from multiple processors? If I am running Applix and have several seriously big spreadsheets, a couple of word-processing documents, etc will there be an increase in performance over a single processor - or will performance be negligible? 3) Do programmes such as Blender take advbantage of multiple CPU's (not that I've used it yet but I would like to play with it a bit) 4) Would a dual-Celeron setup give me an overall better performance than the more expensive Pent-III? How noticeable would it be, and to what use is a multiple CPU system best put? I am starting to use a hard-disk recording system called Slab. This program allows the various processses of recording, mixing, FX processing and GUI to be distributed over several CPU's, yielding a performance increase. The author (Nick Copeland) said that this setup has not been tested on a multiple CPU system - so don't get one just to run Slab. As I am potentially in the market for a new system if I can get better performance from dual-Celerons on other programmes I run, I may as well save the money and impress my friends running Win98 with a system that really rocks. On a side note the new Abit board comes with DMA-66 controllers. IF I purchased a DMA-66 enabled hard drive and a DMA-66 m/board will Linux run okay? I think DMA-66 is not scheduled until 2.4. Could I set the board for DMA-33 until 2.4 is released?
RE: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
First of all - thanks to all of you who have replied to my original post. It has at least given me something to think about. Second - I should clarify a pint I made in my original post. When I said I would "impress my friends running Win98 with a system that really rocks" I meant my friends were running Win98 and I was running a dual-CPU Linux box and I was doing the rocking. One comma can make so much difference to a sentence ;-) A few more questions. Overclocking a Celeron - I know a lot has been written about this in a lot of places but 1 quick question - I know overclocking voids the Intel warranty (in fact I think running dual-Celerons voids the warranty also - I might have read that on Slashdot) but can it actually fry the CPU, or does it just make the system unstable? I have also read (RedHat site perhaps?) that Linux does not take kindly to overclocked systems because it has a faster kernal and therefore more susceptible to system timing problems. Is this still true? Some of you mentioned that SCSI gives a much higher performance than IDE, especially when dealing with multiple requests. IF I have 4 IDE devices on 4 separate channels (as opposed to two), can Linux make a request to each device concurrently? How does this differ from the way SCSI makes requests to drives? For PBen - SLab runs on Linux. Have a look at http://www.llornkcor.com/SLab/SLab.html As the web site says it takes a bit to learn. I am still very much in the learning stage at the moment. I need a month off work so I can sit down and learn. Aaron deRozario
Re: [newbie] Multiple CPU (2 Celerons or one Pent-3)
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:03:13 +0800 , Aaron deRozario [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few more questions. Overclocking a Celeron - I know a lot has been written about this in a lot of places but 1 quick question - I know overclocking voids the Intel warranty (in fact I think running dual-Celerons voids the warranty also - I might have read that on Slashdot) but can it actually fry the CPU, or does it just make the system unstable? I have also read (RedHat site perhaps?) that Linux does not take kindly to overclocked systems because it has a faster kernal and therefore more susceptible to system timing problems. Is this still true? There are claims that it will shorten the life of the CPU. If you have to bump up the voltage on the CPU the dopants, trace impurities in the silicon that makes it an semiconductor, will migrate and eventually kill the transistors. Then there is the problem of extra heat created by running it at a higher clock rate. The heat in a transistor is generated by changing states. If you change states more times per second you will generate more heat. I managed to get to 92MHz from 66MHz without raising the voltage applied to the CPUs. I did stick in an extra fan in my case to increase the air flow in my case. So it stays under 40 C in the case, the motherboard reports the CPUs are running at about 50 C. A little warm but not too bad. (Has anybody got KLM to work for them? I would love to keep track of the CPU temperature in Linux.) I haven't had any problems with Linux. Windows 2000 gave me a few problems. So I would say that Win2k doesn't take too kindly to OC. Some of you mentioned that SCSI gives a much higher performance than IDE, especially when dealing with multiple requests. IF I have 4 IDE devices on 4 separate channels (as opposed to two), can Linux make a request to each device concurrently? How does this differ from the way SCSI makes requests to drives? It might work but I am not the one to ask on that. From what I have read and my experience SCSI is still better when you are hitting the drive with multiple requests. I haven't read up on the changes made with UDMA66. I think I read some place there were a few on the request queue problem. For PBen - SLab runs on Linux. Have a look at http://www.llornkcor.com/SLab/SLab.html As the web site says it takes a bit to learn. I am still very much in the learning stage at the moment. I need a month off work so I can sit down and learn. Thanks I will check it out. PBen
