Ok.. first off, I still am running my dual 450 slot 1 celeron box.. (899 or some such bogomips FWIW, more if I bump em up to 464..) yes, I was one of the old school, hard core, drill the via's and solder the wires on the CPU guys!
If I remember my kernel compile benchmarks, I would get 60-70% increase over a single processor, the dual compile time was about 1 min 35 sec for the 2.0.36 kernel. Never got around to trying it on (and under) a 2.2... SMP's improved, the code got bigger. Maybe I'll get an 2.0.36 source and compile it on the current Mandrake 6.1 system...
I wanted to comment on the Beowulf comment.. I'd heard of one, at a small college in Florida (that I can't remember now) that built one on 300a's running at 450Mhz and it tied a Cray for the #1 spot in the POV Raytracing benchmark.. (don't have the site handy, but that would be where to find it) And of course, the price/performance point is probably a record unto itself. Cheap?? When I bought my 300a's back a year ago Sep, they were cheap at $160!! (compared with PII-450's at $750!) You can get 366's for $50 bucks now...
So, they work, they work well, yes I wouldn't bet the (server) farm on them for mission critical stuff, but for cheap home or research work, there ya go..
Well. its like any other area of life. "If other people are breaking the laws, then the laws must not mean much, so its OK if I do it too.." kind of thinking usually dosen't work well.
There's often reasons behind the laws, that put them there in the first place. Oh, sorry about the "its the telcos, preventing competition" bit, these restrictions have been there (in one form or other) for much longer than those current issues.
Another thing, if you are going to operate illegally and possibly interfere with other services (the real reason the rules are there), I'd pick a piece of band that DIDN'T have Hams around to notice and probably seek you out over it, rather than someplace not so traveled.
Another another thing.. being an engineer and knowlegable in radio (and a Ham), there are problems with just upping your power. Narrower bandwith (like voice) = more sensitive recievers, and better range for same power = lower data rate in data mode. Higher bandwidth = faster data rates = less sensitive recievers = less range for same power/antenna situation. Its more of a challange for hi bandwith radio. Also, and worst, is the situation of multipath, and one station interfering with many others due to too much power. Digital signals need very clean signals, typically.. noise that you can hear and understand voice with can totally obliterate a digital connection. Having signal bounce back off mountains, tall buildings, airplanes, etc. can mess up a normally clear path, and that gets worse fast with more power.
There's much to consider in something like this, too much for a short mail. Basically, low power and lots of antenna gain (which equals directivity, i.e. dishes or beams) is the better direction to go. There is a website that has a paper on these issues, written by a Ham researcher in digital high speed Ham networks, if you are really interested. I belive its called the "Higher speed Packet" page, Packet radio being the commonly used digital mode of networking. Search on Packet Radio, high speed, to find it..
Anyway, I don't mean to say you shouldn't try something, since I really don't know the ISM laws, it may not be a problem to add antenna gain, and leave power the same, depends on how they wrote it up. That would work better, be cheaper, and the more directional you get the less interference you cause to whoever is your neighbors. Antennas are pretty easy and cheap to make, once you know a little bit about whats what. Get a copy of the Amateur Radio Handbook at the local library, or buy one, for starters...
Didn't mean to write a book, but didn't want to see a place where common courtesy was also the better result way to go get by..:-)
It is interesting, that now there is no explanation link, the one from earlier today is now 404.
The About link has no info on the overall situation. There seems to be nothing explaning, as well as no more asking for support.
Perhaps some damage control in fighting the fires from the mailbox??;-)
On the overall "look and feel", I see he trimmed down the main menu, it fits on a single page now. But, its still pretty much the same content and pretty much the same style.
I think Jim Pick has done a excellent job, in producing one of the major resources of the Linux world. After it was languishing, and nearly died out, he stepped in, made some changes, and breathed it back to life. For 2 years, his site has been the resource I want in my bookmarks. Heck, that's where I found out about/., in the list of other important sites under the banner.
Anyway, rather than going on and on.. we all know what we're going to on this one..
Hehehe... wondering how long till some braindead counterfiter tries to make a Xeon plastic case to glue around it.. good thing it dosen't work in regular motherboards.
But, if you see a guy in a trench coat, with chips ALLMOST the size of Xeons, for $300, saying "Pssst..." you know which way to walk...
Ahem... there I go, talking stats and parts like a real bithead. Ya'd tink I used to hop up cars... :-)
Meant to comment on the dual Abit board. I think it would be a MUCH better solution to SMP 370's than the plugin cards, for reasons mentioned in my last post. Cleaner signals, less clock/signal skew possibilites.. gotta be more stable.
I still suggest slot 1 chips modified, over the 370's in the slocket solutiion, tho the native dual 370 should be as good or better.
Yes! I also have a working system.. Asus P2B-DS, pair of Cele 300a's running 450 or 464.
I was doing the drilling/jumpering mod as a side buisness, for a while there.. till the socket 370 converters killed interest. (tho I hear they challange overclocking with extra trace length and connector effects)
Both 2.0.35/36 and 2.2.5 kernels run fine, detect processors, etc... I've been too busy to do much benchmarking since converting to RH 6.0, or even much decent testing back then, but on the 2.0 kernel, I would get compile times (-j unlimited) of 1 min 28 seconds, running between 10-20 copies of gcc! This on a 64MB system, with (at the time) a old Quantum Fireball 1.08Gb ide drive..
Sometime I'll get some tests run with the 2.2 kernel and the new UDMA drive.
AFAIK, he wrote every lyric that Dr. Hook performed. I had no idea (tho it makes sense in retrospect) that he wrote "Boy named Sue"!
Have to find the lyric site that I was able to get text copies of various ones of his.. loved the classic "The Great Smoke Off"...
Such an amazing range of style... he did masterful childrens poetry/songs, and hysterical "adult" topic stuff as well. Hugh Hefner used to have him as a musical guest at parties in the Mansion.
Allright!! A thread with perhaps the highest productivity/flame generation ratio so far!;-)
This is the point to get from all this.. and its good to see response in this direction.. Stop the flamage, and USE the points to respond and improve situations out there!
I kind of see this like the Web in general.. it used to be, way back when, you could find allmost anything in no time. Now, with huge growth, there's so much "stuff" out there, it takes forever to find what your'e looking for. It can even be hard to find something you KNOW is out there!
The Linux Web/info community has gone thru similar growth, and we now need more, and better sites, to act as clearing houses to direct people to the information they need. (as well as more to provide the newer info that hasn't been posted yet!)
I hope this event will point this out to people, and they will rise to the task.. seems like some are already... Thanks!!
OK.. no one mentioned it that I've seen so far, but it kinda glared out at me: the fact that he mentions performance "in excess of 1300 req/sec" before it falls down.. then in the report, that shrinks somehow to 1000 req/sec??
Kinda makes (me at least) ya go Hmmm...
Anyway... I'm looking forward to results on the same kind of hardware, peaked by people who know how. Hope they get that re-test project going!
Slashdot Mirror
Ok.. first off, I still am running my dual 450 slot 1 celeron box.. (899 or some such bogomips FWIW, more if I bump em up to 464..) yes, I was one of the old school, hard core, drill the via's and solder the wires on the CPU guys!
If I remember my kernel compile benchmarks, I would get 60-70% increase over a single processor, the dual compile time was about 1 min 35 sec for the 2.0.36 kernel. Never got around to trying it on (and under) a 2.2... SMP's improved, the code got bigger. Maybe I'll get an 2.0.36 source and compile it on the current Mandrake 6.1 system...
I wanted to comment on the Beowulf comment.. I'd heard of one, at a small college in Florida (that I can't remember now) that built one on 300a's running at 450Mhz and it tied a Cray for the #1 spot in the POV Raytracing benchmark.. (don't have the site handy, but that would be where to find it) And of course, the price/performance point is probably a record unto itself. Cheap?? When I bought my 300a's back a year ago Sep, they were cheap at $160!! (compared with PII-450's at $750!) You can get 366's for $50 bucks now...
So, they work, they work well, yes I wouldn't bet the (server) farm on them for mission critical stuff, but for cheap home or research work, there ya go..
Well. its like any other area of life. "If other people are breaking the laws, then the laws must not mean much, so its OK if I do it too.." kind of thinking usually dosen't work well.
:-)
There's often reasons behind the laws, that put
them there in the first place. Oh, sorry about the "its the telcos, preventing competition" bit, these restrictions have been there (in one form or other) for much longer than those current issues.
Another thing, if you are going to operate illegally and possibly interfere with other services (the real reason the rules are there), I'd pick a piece of band that DIDN'T have Hams around to notice and probably seek you out over it, rather than someplace not so traveled.
Another another thing.. being an engineer and knowlegable in radio (and a Ham), there are problems with just upping your power. Narrower bandwith (like voice) = more sensitive recievers, and better range for same power = lower data rate in data mode. Higher bandwidth = faster data rates = less sensitive recievers = less range for same power/antenna situation. Its more of a challange for hi bandwith radio. Also, and worst, is the situation of multipath, and one station interfering with many others due to too much power. Digital signals need very clean signals, typically.. noise that you can hear and understand voice with can totally obliterate a digital connection. Having signal bounce back off mountains, tall buildings, airplanes, etc. can mess up a normally clear path, and that gets worse fast with more power.
There's much to consider in something like this, too much for a short mail. Basically, low power and lots of antenna gain (which equals directivity, i.e. dishes or beams) is the better direction to go. There is a website that has a paper on these issues, written by a Ham researcher in digital high speed Ham networks, if you are really interested. I belive its called the "Higher speed Packet" page, Packet radio being the commonly used digital mode of networking.
Search on Packet Radio, high speed, to find it..
Anyway, I don't mean to say you shouldn't try something, since I really don't know the ISM laws,
it may not be a problem to add antenna gain, and leave power the same, depends on how they wrote
it up. That would work better, be cheaper, and the more directional you get the less interference you cause to whoever is your neighbors. Antennas are pretty easy and cheap to make, once you know a little bit about whats what. Get a copy of the Amateur Radio Handbook at the local library, or buy one, for starters...
Didn't mean to write a book, but didn't want to see a place where common courtesy was also the better result way to go get by..
Hope it helped...
It is interesting, that now there is no explanation link, the one from earlier today is now 404.
;-)
/., in the list of other important sites under the banner.
The About link has no info on the overall situation. There seems to be nothing explaning, as well as no more asking for support.
Perhaps some damage control in fighting the fires from the mailbox??
On the overall "look and feel", I see he trimmed down the main menu, it fits on a single page now.
But, its still pretty much the same content and pretty much the same style.
I think Jim Pick has done a excellent job, in producing one of the major resources of the Linux world. After it was languishing, and nearly died out, he stepped in, made some changes, and breathed it back to life. For 2 years, his site has been the resource I want in my bookmarks. Heck, that's where I found out about
Anyway, rather than going on and on.. we all know what we're going to on this one..
Hehehe... wondering how long till some braindead counterfiter tries to make a Xeon plastic case to glue around it.. good thing it dosen't work in regular motherboards.
But, if you see a guy in a trench coat, with chips ALLMOST the size of Xeons, for $300, saying "Pssst..." you know which way to walk...
Ahem... there I go, talking stats and parts like a real bithead. Ya'd tink I used to hop up cars...
:-)
Meant to comment on the dual Abit board. I think it would be a MUCH better solution to SMP 370's than the plugin cards, for reasons mentioned in my last post. Cleaner signals, less clock/signal skew possibilites.. gotta be more stable.
I still suggest slot 1 chips modified, over the 370's in the slocket solutiion, tho the native dual 370 should be as good or better.
Yes! I also have a working system.. Asus P2B-DS,
pair of Cele 300a's running 450 or 464.
I was doing the drilling/jumpering mod as a side buisness, for a while there.. till the socket 370 converters killed interest. (tho I hear they challange overclocking with extra trace length and connector effects)
Both 2.0.35/36 and 2.2.5 kernels run fine, detect processors, etc... I've been too busy to do much benchmarking since converting to RH 6.0, or even much decent testing back then, but on the 2.0 kernel, I would get compile times (-j unlimited)
of 1 min 28 seconds, running between 10-20 copies of gcc! This on a 64MB system, with (at the time) a old Quantum Fireball 1.08Gb ide drive..
Sometime I'll get some tests run with the 2.2 kernel and the new UDMA drive.
AFAIK, he wrote every lyric that Dr. Hook performed. I had no idea (tho it makes sense in retrospect) that he wrote "Boy named Sue"!
Have to find the lyric site that I was able to get text copies of various ones of his.. loved the classic "The Great Smoke Off"...
Such an amazing range of style... he did masterful childrens poetry/songs, and hysterical "adult" topic stuff as well. Hugh Hefner used to have him as a musical guest at parties in the Mansion.
Ah Shel... we'll miss ya!
Allright!! A thread with perhaps the highest productivity/flame generation ratio so far! ;-)
This is the point to get from all this.. and its good to see response in this direction.. Stop the flamage, and USE the points to respond and improve situations out there!
I kind of see this like the Web in general.. it used to be, way back when, you could find allmost anything in no time. Now, with huge growth, there's so much "stuff" out there, it takes forever to find what your'e looking for.
It can even be hard to find something you KNOW is out there!
The Linux Web/info community has gone thru similar growth, and we now need more, and better sites,
to act as clearing houses to direct people to the information they need. (as well as more to provide the newer info that hasn't been posted yet!)
I hope this event will point this out to people, and they will rise to the task.. seems like some are already... Thanks!!
Anyone know of their hardware setup nowadays?
I recall when they used to mention it, back when they were several Pentium Linux boxes.
It would be interesting to know if they are still Linux servers, and what their load and etc is..
OK.. no one mentioned it that I've seen so far, but it kinda glared out at me: the fact that he mentions performance "in excess of 1300 req/sec"
before it falls down.. then in the report, that shrinks somehow to 1000 req/sec??
Kinda makes (me at least) ya go Hmmm...
Anyway... I'm looking forward to results on the same kind of hardware, peaked by people who know how. Hope they get that re-test project going!