I imagine everybody's desktop is different, hardware/OS, but I've not had the
same success rate with my home or work PC as you have had. Are you running a
Mac or Intel, Linux or Windows? I think the new Mac commercials are sooo cool!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/18/2006 8:24 PM
The Athlon XP is
Richard Pinion wrote:
I imagine everybody's desktop is different, hardware/OS, but I've not had the
same success rate with my home or work PC as you have had. Are you running a
Mac or Intel, Linux or Windows? I think the new Mac commercials are sooo cool!
Those were two semprons (32-bit)
On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 12:07 -0500, Tom Duerbusch wrote:
#4 Context switching. Seems like when you switch from one task to
another on some processors, all of cache is invalidated. Doesn't seem
to be so with the mainframe. I assume there is a point, where we
thrash cache, but it seems like
John Campbell wrote:
[GRAIN TYPE=SALT MODE=Stand Up Philosopher]
A long time ago in a website far, far away, I once sent a note to the
fellow talking about mainframes.
In fact, some years after I wrote the original author a note and then
forgot about it, I discovered that my reply had somehow
On Iau, 2006-05-18 at 10:03 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On x86 it is the translation-lookaside-buffers (TLBs) which get flushed
each time the control register 1 is loaded. Switching between threads is
[%cr3 not 1 but thats by the way]
fine because the use the same translation table.
On Thursday, 05/18/2006 at 10:03 ZE2, Martin Schwidefsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cache is a different story. Mainframes have the advantage of a
shared level 2 cache compared to x86. If a process migrates from one
processor to another, the cache lines of the process just have to be
loaded
John Summerfied writes:
...
I have not heard of any failed Intel or AMD CPUs in a very long time.
Accompanying system components such as RAM, disks, NICs, yes, but not
the CPU itself. The systems I use are built to be cheap; one can have
greater reliability for a greater price. I imagine that
to
Linux on 390 Port
and they would call virtual machines ghosts.
-Original Message-
From: Rob van der Heij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:38 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been reading our list...
Five
@VM.MARIST.EDU
390 Port cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU Subject
Re: Who's been reading our list...
05/18/2006 08:55
cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU Subject
Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been
reading our list...
05/18/2006 07:23
Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been
reading our list...
05/18/2006 07:23
AM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
On Iau, 2006-05-18 at 10:03
On May 18, 2006, at 3:13 AM, John Summerfied wrote:
I have not heard of any failed Intel or AMD CPUs in a very long time.
Accompanying system components such as RAM, disks, NICs, yes, but not
the CPU itself.
I'll be happy to give you a couple of mine.
OK, so it was thermal failure caused by
I'm sure this is a completely different class of processor, but I recently
purchased an AMD Athlon 3200+ XP. After chaning the memory chips, power
supply, heatsink/fan, video card, and removing all other cards I finally
decided the chip was faulty. It would attempt to boot up and after the
. :)
-Sam
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Pinion
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:19 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Who's been reading our list...
I'm sure this is a completely different class of processor, but I
recently
is not in the same class as the Opteron. :)
-Sam
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Richard Pinion
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:19 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Who's been reading our list...
I'm sure this is a completely
to
Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Who's been reading our list...
Many times when it works like that for a little bit and then freezes up,
you're experiencing a thermal issue. There could be any number of
reasons for that and a couple
On May 18, 2006, at 9:58 AM, James Tison wrote:
Don't forget to check your power supply under load, either. The PS
is the
primary point of entry for those dustbunnies, which can really hose a
power supply. I've had just *one* bad AMD chip in the past (not bad
for as
many as I've bought) which
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
John Summerfied
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:14 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been reading our list...
John Campbell wrote:
[GRAIN TYPE=SALT MODE=Stand Up Philosopher]
A long time ago in a website far, far away, I once sent
-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Richard Pinion
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:05 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been reading our list...
I've always wanted to ask this question and you seem like someone who would
know. First
The AMD chips don't have redundant logic, so when something fails you get the
wrong answer.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Richard Pinion
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:19 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Who's been reading our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/06 2:13 AM
The term mainframe has been around for some years.
Remember Tandem Non Stop? Tandem's big selling-point was
reliability
(fault tolerance) through redundancy. As best I can recall I went to
a
presentation in the early 80s, when we had Amdahl 43xxs and IBM's
On 5/18/06, Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the 8086 days it took several clock cycles to do anything. The most
annoying to me was the 60 cycle divide instruction. These days they are much
faster, some instructions being only one clock.
I still have trouble to measure
On Iau, 2006-05-18 at 09:51 -0400, Joseph Temple wrote:
Yes tagging works, but you will find that the system z holds a lot more
translations in a two tiered TLB and has tagging as well. Thus the System
z does not have to retranslate as often.
How many tags does the Z have in the TLBs ?
reading our list...
05/18/2006 01:17
PM
Remember Tandem Non Stop? Tandem's big selling-point was reliability
(fault tolerance) through redundancy. As best I can recall I went to a
presentation in the early 80s, when we had Amdahl 43xxs and IBM's
mainframes were 3080 series. I think we had some dodgy disk drives, but
otherwise
FWIW, I used the Xerox Sigma 9 in school. The Univeristy of Southern
Mississippi had the Sigma 9 in 1980 when I graduated. From my perpective as a
student in CS it was a good machine. Do you remember RAD SAT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/18/2006 3:26:32 PM
Remember Tandem Non Stop? Tandem's big
: Re: Who's been reading our list...
FWIW, I used the Xerox Sigma 9 in school. The Univeristy of Southern
Mississippi had the Sigma 9 in 1980 when I graduated. From my perpective as a
student in CS it was a good machine. Do you remember RAD SAT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/18/2006 3:26:32 PM
Fargusson.Alan wrote:
I suspect you are thinking of the prefix instructions used in the block move.
Or maybe you didn't notice that you can use the prefix instruction. In any
case the block move on Intel is about the same as a move character on the
mainframe.
In the 8086 days it took
Richard Pinion wrote:
Richard
You may be posting in HTML. Better if you don't - shorter emails kinder
to dialup users, less likely to be tagged as spam (some people, would
you believe it? refuse HTML email altogether). It might explain why
Mozilla's quoting is a bit off.
I've always wanted to
Richard Pinion wrote:
I'm sure this is a completely different class of processor, but I recently
purchased an AMD Athlon 3200+ XP. After chaning the memory chips, power
supply, heatsink/fan, video card, and removing all other cards I finally
decided the chip was faulty. It would attempt to
been reading our list...
05/16/2006 10:37
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=595
OK - I'm going to play serious devil's advocate here,
at the risk of the ire of several people, I'm sure.
But, I think we need to do something more 'direct'
in terms of refuting the arguments.
I've seen a couple of posts that have a sentiment of
well - this guy doesn't know what he's talking
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
1 - A mainframe CPU is about as fast as a PIII
(snip)
Now - how do we break-down the arguments and address them?
My personal favorite measure to address it is:
- I get annoyed when compiling a linux kernel for my good old PIII laptop
computer at home, because I can
Carsten,
the second problem can be solved by lowering the weight of your z9 Lpar, giving
you a chance to get and finish your coffee.
I don't know about the first problem though
Best regards,
Pieter Harder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel +31-73-6837133 / +31-6-47272537
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/06
of them are
aptly handled by z/VM.
-Sam
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:17 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Who's been reading our list...
OK - I'm going to play serious devil's
Kielek, Samuel wrote:
You can have
multiple LPAR's running z/VM with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of
Linux guests all on a single footprint.
/me only hundreds: thousand not yet, but give me time... ;)
--
Gian
--
For
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Carsten Otte
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:50 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Who's been reading our list...
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
1 - A mainframe CPU is about as fast as a PIII
(snip
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Who's
been reading our list...
Sent by: Linux on
390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
05/17/06 08:16 AM
Please respond
Campbell/Tampa/IBM on 05/17/06 12:14 PM -
Thomas David
Rivers To:
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:
m Subject: Re:
[LINUX-390] Who's been reading our
Five years ago this class of publication would entertain us by
calculating that with 100 virtual machines, each Linux server would be
getting equivalent of a PIII at 7.5 MHz. At least I did not spot that
in the part that I read. We're making progress in educating the press.
:-)
Hey, five years
and they would call virtual machines ghosts.
-Original Message-
From: Rob van der Heij [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:38 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [LINUX-390] Who's been reading our list...
Five years ago this class
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=595
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Neale Ferguson
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Who's been reading our list...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=595
Whoever wrote that just does not get it.
On Tue, 16 May 2006, Neale Ferguson wrote:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=595
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL
44 matches
Mail list logo
