If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Who is selling Opteron 4-way or 8-way SMP boards?
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 04:29:42 GMT, Hugh wrote:
Please recommend. Sorry, but at the moment nobody is selling a 4 or 8-way SMP board for the Opteron at the retail level (such boards are rare even for mature processors, let alone a brand-new one). One company does make a 4-way board (probably Arima, they made the first dual Opteron board), but it is not sold at the retail level. Closest that you could come is probably a bare-bones server from one of the server manufacturer's that AMD has listed on their website. Note: this is going to set you back a pretty penny. A 4 or 8-way Opteron system requires the use of Opteron 8xx series chips, which are roughly 3 times as expensive as the Opteron 2xx chips. Eunix (www.eunix.com) will sell you a pretty bare-bones 4-way server, 4U rackmount case, 4 x Opteron 840 chips (1.4GHz) and 512MB of memory for $11,534. Going up to the 4 x Opteron 844 chips (1.8GHz) bumps the price up to $21,534 (all prices in US dollars). Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for a DIY job? My favorite for i32 has been SuSE. SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting an AMD64 distribution. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, Tony Hill whined: One company does make a 4-way board (probably Arima, Arima shows only a 2xOpteron MB on their website, and on pricewatch.com. 1.) Have you checked out the Opteron "partners" listed at AMD's site ? 2.) There used to be details about a 4-way board at the NewiSys site shortly after the Opteron launch - no idea if it is still there. (No idea if the NewiSys web site is still there.) 3.) There are 4-way Opteron vs. Xeon and Itanic benchmarks at AMD. Find those and then look for a link to the details about the tested systems - perhaps that link will tell you what mobo was used. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hugh wrote:
Please recommend. A list of available motherboards is located at http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_boards.html The only 4-way board is by Newisys, called 'Sobek'. If you go to www.newisys.com, you'll find they have a machine using this board (4300). AFAIK, the 4-way machines sold by the likes of Racksaver, Appro etc use this Newisys design. Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for a DIY job? My favorite for i32 has been SuSE. I think you have to pay for Suse 8 on AMD64, but there is also a Rawhide Redhat (beta) at ftp.redhat.com. Haven't tried it, however. -- Bjørn-Ove Heimsund |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
.com... Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for a DIY job? My favorite for i32 has been SuSE. SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting an AMD64 distribution. It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for AMD64? Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: "Tony Hill" wrote in message t.com... SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting an AMD64 distribution. It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for AMD64? The problem isn't the kernel, that's been able to support AMD64 for a year or more now, long before the hardware was readily available. The real trick is with the libraries and package dependencies. See, AMD64 presents a rather tricky problem, it's actually two architectures in one. Typically Linux is designed for just a single architecture, ie you compile your kernel using one of the 'arch/' directories and than all the applications you ever want or need are compiled for that same architecture. However, with AMD64, you compile your kernel with 'arch/x86-64', but you can execute code for either x86-64 or i386 architectures. The kernel can handle this with no troubles, and statically linked applications aren't a problem either. The trick is with dynamically linked applications. First off, you need to recompile all your libraries for x86-64 in order to support x86-64 binaries. Ideally this should just be a straight recompile (and indeed it is for most of the more common ones), but not all libraries are 64-bit safe. The fact is that most Linux development work is focused exclusively for the IA-32 platform, so occasionally some slightly assumptions are made which are not true for other platforms. After that, when you finally do get your libraries compiled for x86-64, you need to also have some 32-bit libraries installed so that i386 code can link to those. All in all, it just takes time for a distribution to put everything all together. The code is all out there (or is being rapidly developed), but it takes time/money to packaged it all up. Since most Linux distributions operate are rather thin profit margins to begin with, they all have to decide how much emphasis to place on this project. SuSE was contracted by AMD to do some work, putting them at a bit of an advantage. They also had a certain marketing interest in being the #1 operating system supplier for the Opteron. Mandrake now has a version of their "Corporate Server" distribution available for the Opteron, and I believe a beta for their desktop distribution (their server currently seems to be getting DOSed or something, it's slow as hell). Redhat has beta versions available as well. Note that these issues also affect, for example, the new Apple PowerMac G5's, as well as other PPC64 based systems. Sun and SGI also had to deal with this on their own versions of Unix. It can be made to work just fine eventually, just takes a bit of time. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Douglas Bollinger" wrote in message
news On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote: It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for AMD64? How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is Linux, remember. Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while you're debugging it? Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" writes:
How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is Linux, remember. Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while you're debugging it? No. While many people have done just that, under the terms of the license as soon as you release binary you need to release corresponding source. -- Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:44:06 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: "Douglas Bollinger" wrote in message news On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote: How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is Linux, remember. Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while you're debugging it? You could, but it's rather pointless. Regardless, the issue is not with the kernel at all, but with the libraries. The kernel has been all set to support AMD64 for quite a while before the hardware was available. Of course, the upcoming 2.6.x series of kernels will perhaps improve support somewhat, and lots of work is still going on to support more chipsets and other Opteron hardware. Interestingly enough, while reading up on Opteron support in the 2.6.x kernel, the general consensus was that the NUMA optimizations did absolutely nothing for the Opteron (due to it's 1 processor to 1 node setup apparently). I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing or not (AMD always said that NUMA optimizations weren't needed with the Opteron), but I know some people were expecting some sort of performance boost for the chip when a NUMA-aware OS was made available. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for AMD64? How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is Linux, remember. Anyway, it's just that no one else has bothered with it yet. As the Opteron becomes more popular, I'm sure you will see the other distros put out a Opteron version. Remember, for a distro, it's more that just copying Suse's work on the kernel, you have to support it as well. ($$$). And no, more of the Linux developments are still from independent developers. Right now, few people have Opteron boxes so you won't see much work on that yet. -- Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opteron or FX5x | [email protected] | Overclocking AMD Processors | 19 | May 22nd 04 12:41 AM |
Opteron, the chip for supercomputers | Yousuf Khan | General | 49 | September 6th 03 12:20 AM |
Anybody selling Iwill DK8S Opteron boards in the US? | G. Hugh Song | General | 0 | August 19th 03 01:45 AM |
Cheapest Opteron system available now? | path | General | 3 | August 16th 03 07:42 AM |