Slashdot Mirror

The mini allows for 100,000 documents/URLs to be stored in a collection, and AnandTech contains approximately 40,000 articles, news and blog entries.

When we first set up the Mini, we told it to start in each of the website's sections (for example, http://www.anandtech.com/it/) and in the web news area. The Mini considers any unique URL string to be a unique document, which makes sense (but is a bit surprising the first time that you run an index).

After four hours of indexing, the Mini had managed to reach its document limit and we had to improvise... A word to the wise: don't let the Mini crawl your entire site without keeping a close eye on it.

The mini allows for 100,000 documents/URLs to be stored in a collection, and AnandTech contains approximately 40,000 articles, news and blog entries.

When we first set up the Mini, we told it to start in each of the website's sections (for example, http://www.anandtech.com/it/) and in the web news area. The Mini considers any unique URL string to be a unique document, which makes sense (but is a bit surprising the first time that you run an index).

After four hours of indexing, the Mini had managed to reach its document limit and we had to improvise... A word to the wise: don't let the Mini crawl your entire site without keeping a close eye on it.

go to http://search.anandtech.com/ and do some googling. a bug?? http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=hardware To access the search results, you must issue a GET request to the Google Search Appliance via a search box. You can do this by copying and pasting the following HTML code into a Web page. Enter your server name and your collection name where indicated in the code. <!-- Search My Google Search Appliance --> <form method="get" action="http://enteryourservernamehere/search"&gt; <table> <tr> <td> <input type="text" name="q" size="25" maxlength="255" value=""/> <input type="submit" name="btnG" value="Google Search"/> <input type="hidden" name="site" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="client" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="proxystylesheet" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="output" value="xml_no_dtd"/> </td> </tr> </table> </form> <!-- Search My Google Search Appliance-->

go to http://search.anandtech.com/ and do some googling. a bug?? http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=hardware To access the search results, you must issue a GET request to the Google Search Appliance via a search box. You can do this by copying and pasting the following HTML code into a Web page. Enter your server name and your collection name where indicated in the code. <!-- Search My Google Search Appliance --> <form method="get" action="http://enteryourservernamehere/search"&gt; <table> <tr> <td> <input type="text" name="q" size="25" maxlength="255" value=""/> <input type="submit" name="btnG" value="Google Search"/> <input type="hidden" name="site" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="client" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="proxystylesheet" value="ENTER_COLLECTION_NAME"/> <input type="hidden" name="output" value="xml_no_dtd"/> </td> </tr> </table> </form> <!-- Search My Google Search Appliance-->

Where is the truth?

Man, I'm and early adopter if there ever was one, but neither of these jokers (X360, PS3) seems very appealing as of yet, is it just me? High end PC graphics are getting cheaper, while these consoles are getting as expensvie as a budget PC. Especially if you already love your keyboard, monitor and mouse like i do.

Suddenly my PC ain't looking so old. Especially with most games nowadays realizing the dream of being (somewhat)GPU dependent.

No black market chips to buy to play MAME of n64 games, either.

Combine uber-expenseive consoles with a steady supply of new WoWs and Battlefield 2s and you have a vastly different situation that the total console domination that the heads of Sony and Msoft are envisioning.

My prediction: Microsoft by a hair in the states, with the PC gaining some ground.

Did anyone look at the pics in the Wired article? It's basically a whole mess of planar-magnetic drivers (e.g. Monsoon, Eminent, Apogee, Magnepan, etc.) mounted on a panel. Is it really that simple?

OS X has also migrated away from userthreads

OS X never had userthreads. The article corrects that misconception from the previous article:

Readers pointed out that there were two errors in this sentence. The first one is that Mac OS X does use kernelthreads, and this is completely true. My confusion came from the fact that FreeBSD 4.x and older - which was part of the OS X kernel until Tiger came along - did not implement kernelthreads; rather, only userthreads. It was one of the reasons why MySQL ran badly on FreeBSD 4.x and older. In the case of userthreads, it is not the kernel that manages the threads, but an application running on top of the kernel in userspace.

Apple Tech Note from which the picture that was in the article at this point was taken

However, this is not the case of Mac OS X. Pthreads, available to the programmer, map directly to a Mach thread, and thread handling is the very heart of the Mach kernel inside the OS X kernel.

No, they *think* the problem is threads. As another poster pointed out they're still plenty clueless about what's actually going on.

Arguments about when OS X got native threading (which is what your link there is about) are moot. What is at issue is the performance of the OS X threading architecture. From the article (by way of Apple):

"POSIX thread (commonly referred to as a "pthread") is a lightweight wrapper around a Mach thread that enables it to be used by user-level processes. POSIX threads are the basis for all of the application-level threads."

So the use of lmbench to get an idea of how fast OS X handles thread and process creation is valid. Therefore, your link does not invalidate the lmbench results of Johan's tests, which were done as part of a search to find out why MySQL performed so much worse in OS X than in Linux on the same hardware. People can whine and say MySQL is broken, but you can't argue with the lmbench results. Process and thread creation in OS X is simply slow.

It was the best first generation Athlon motherboard out there. But Asus would not admit to actually MAKING the board at all. Why? They were afraid of Intel.

Here's a link to help you remember:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=1153

Click on the board's picture and look for the Asus name. It's usually printed quite clearly on the PCB.

You may remember the past as rosey, but I remember the FIC SD11, Asus K7M, and the Gigabyte boards as the only three available. No manufacturer wanted to piss off Intel. It took some major wins to get companies on board.

These were published yesterday:

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 9
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=251 0


HJ

These were published yesterday:

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 9
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=251 0


HJ

Anandtech has a great article going over the Cell as well.

Probably isn't quite as in-depth, though.

According to the benchmarks I've seen, it doesn't even afford much in the way of performance, either.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=21 01

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=21 01&p=10

RULE #1 If you want better performance buy a better drive, not more drives.

If you want data integrity a MUCH better alternative would be to simply use a 4GB flash drive, and hey, its available now, doesn't use all your battery, is silent, weighs nothing, and is more portable, adding another HD to a laptop is a bit stupid. Not a very good idea Intel...

oops...the second link shall be http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=251 1

NAPA and Pentium-M are not just for laptops: Intel is serious about putting them into 1U blade servers. In a server environment, it makes a lot of sense to have hardware RAID. Intel is also planning a new Xeon chip based on the 65nm Yonah core, codenamed Sossamn: http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 8&p=6
On a side note, the napa northbridge might soon be integrated into the pentium-m die, now they will have a fast cache and memory controller: http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 8&p=6

NAPA and Pentium-M are not just for laptops: Intel is serious about putting them into 1U blade servers. In a server environment, it makes a lot of sense to have hardware RAID. Intel is also planning a new Xeon chip based on the 65nm Yonah core, codenamed Sossamn: http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 8&p=6
On a side note, the napa northbridge might soon be integrated into the pentium-m die, now they will have a fast cache and memory controller: http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 8&p=6

What good is an excellent chip if using it is so difficult?

Here is a pretty good article on Anandtech that compares the architecture of PPC vs x86 and also has some performance tests. http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

dual code dual opteron is often faster than a qaud xeon server
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2397

LOL, was the reporter Anand Shimpi?

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=250 4

HJ

KDE is lame, real people use gnome, whatever their cpu.
this troll was brought to you by /.

Ah, but they did. Take a closer look at that laptop in that slide. Doesn't that look an awful lot like the default blue "swoosh" background of OS X?

Did anyone notice that the laptop picture on p.2 of the article has what looks like the blue "swooshes" of Mac OS X on its screen?

I don't think that the choice of desktop background for this aluminum-looking notebook is coincidental.

May this be a hint of a "5 W Sub-Laptop" in Apple's future?

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2504
http://theinquirer.net/?article=25623
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dX JsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xNTAy
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review_print. php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xNTA0
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review_print. php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xNTAz
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050823_1331 23.html

Anand of AnandTech's experience with Tiger.

One thing that has been interesting me lately, after reading a series of Anadtech articles on current and near-future processor tech is the possible inclusion of SMT (oft marketed as Hyperthreading by Intel) on AMD cores.

The article mentions the POWER5 chip and it's implementation of SMT and how it behaves with multi-core chips (i.e. how it can devote all threads on one core to a single task, with the other core(s) sharing the workload via SMT) and how it's rather more impressive that the HyperThreading[TM] on Intel P4's, although I'm not a microprocesor guru.

Whilst I can understand AMD's decision not to put SMT in their current processors, with the recent focus on multi-core and multi-threading I think they'd be foolish not to think about it soon, and (as someone not very up on non-x86 chips) it seems IBM's POWER5 is a good base to emulate. Does anyone have any information on SMT implementations in POWER other chips like Sparc and Itanium?

You mean the Gigabyte i-RAM disk?

Only 4gb max though, but this appears as standard SATA drive to your system, you can boot from it, load OS, etc. Pretty good priced too (without memory).

So I guess this dual AGP chipset doesn't exist then? http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1183

==>Lazn

I am just going to rip my own comments from the last time Slashdot posted this article, since no one cares about dupes anymore.

It's Conroe
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=24 92

HJ

It doesn't, but having the memory controller on processor helps a lot. Look at the (gaming) benchmarks - you can see how the A64 beats the living hell out of anything Intel offers.

As I said, I'm a gamer - that's where AMD excels. I believe the Intels are still faster in encoding and 3d rendering, and possibly in business applications as well. I don't rip enough CDs to notice the encoding, I haven't touched Maya since college, and my home computer is NOT used for "business" applications which would really take advantage of something like this. Unless you count the 3ns speed increase in starting Thunderbird.

Benchmarks (Gaming (Single Core Chips Only))

Meanwhile, Intel's desktop dual core chips seem to offer much more aggressive pricing at this time. AMD's lowest price dual core chip, the X2 4200 is almost twice as expensive as Intel's lowest cost dual core processor. However, an interview with three AMD execs on PCPerspective.com claims that "AMD would eventually have lower priced Athlon X2 processors via the waterfall effect in the future".

Conroe according to Anandtech...
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=24 92

HJ

The AnandTech RealTime Price Engine has a compilation of merchant links for the most of the 7800GTs.

http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=7800gt+-gtx

zipzoomfly has the pny and xfx 7800GTs at 399 shipped.

No paper launch this time, you can buy the cards for $399 already:

http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=GeForce+780 0GT+-GTX

HJ

Single page version:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2496

Here.

Here is the Anandtech article which does a OSX/Linux/Windows server comparison. Parent's comments are absolutely spot on.

Why the hell are these things so expensive, someone please release a cheap one that doesn't cost more than all the other components combined.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i =2434&p=8

Not really a mirror, but some pics from this case are at anantech. They took them while visting Computex.
Just wanted to mention it since zalman.com and hexus.net are currently down.

It needs some solid state storage http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=24 80 to be a good quiet PC. Then the only thing left is the CD-ROM drive, but if you rip everything from another computer and use strictly USB flash drives you could have a wonderfully quiet PC.

So what someone needs to due [sic] is sue.

This entire story is anti-Microsoft FUD about a complete non-issue.

Tom's doesn't know how to benchmark a chip. The folks there only post a limited viewpoint that supports whatever claim they're currently backing.

Note the sensationalist title, even though the Pentium M performs only so-so in the more modern gaming tests like Doom 3 and 3DMark, and falls behind in SSE-intensive tasks like video encoding.

Note also that the review uses Clawhammer and Newcastle core Athlon 64s. This is NO ACCIDENT. These cores are older, .13 micron jobs that produce a lot more heat than AMD's current lineup. If current cores had been used, the power usage difference wouldn't have been dramatic at all.

If you want to see a competent review of the Pentium M, see this review at Anand's. You'll see that the Pentium M is good for general-purpose computing, but but is only so-so for content creation for the most part.

In some cases the PM leads, in others the A64 leads, and in lots of benchmarks they match up fairly well clock-for-clock. Calling a winner depends on what you want to do with it.

Unfortunately, I don't think the PM's performance is going to hold it's own in upcoing games; the floating-point unit will be really stressed compared to all previous games with the coming of real physics simulation for more than a few objects on a map. That is the only reason I don't think Dothan is all-that.

However, Yonah should be an impressive improvement, both with the second core and beefier FPU / SSE unit. We'll have to wait and see.

It's not called ghosting. It's called "motion blur". Scroll about halfway down and look at what some Anandtech writer just wrote about the whole subject:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid =40&threadid=1648775&enterthread=y

HJ

Has anyone tried this card with Linux or BSD yet? Something on an Anandtech web forum say it works just like any SATA disk (use fdisk, etc.), and the article shows some BIOS screen shots of the SATA disk, but I haven't seen anyone try it on a non-Windows operating system.

Here's is a link to some interesting test info to show how reliable the disk performs in different failure modes.

I want one for my mail spool, MySQL bin-logs, /tmp, Apache logs, small MySQL transaction-driven tables, and any other place where I want reliable fast random writes. If I could cut down the number of writes to disks, I could use slower disks (or get more use out of my current disks).

Covered by AnandTech back in March. Now that's gettin old.

Problem Solved

HJ

Actually it isn't 375MB/s. AnandTech just had a few articles on this: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=24 50

You loose 20% of the bandwidth for parity, so it ends up being 300MB/s.

HJ