Is this the first production kernel with a w.x.y.z numbering scheme instead of the more usual w.x.y? I can't help but wonder how many poorly written version checking Perl scripts this will break...
When the LCD was released, I'm sure the screens were "1000 $ for one crappy INCH!". No-one is suggesting that normal people on normal salaries go and replace all their hard disks with flash right this moment, but who are we to predict the situation in 5 or 10 years? It's quite possible by then that hard disks will have hit some kind of technology limit making them more expensive for the multi-terabyte capacity we'll have by then, and flash has reduced in price to the point where it's equally as cheap or cheaper. I'm sure you won't be "going back to IDE" then.
Thanks for the info. I had been following the reaction at Anand's but didn't realise quite how bad these figures were. I'd give you mod points if I had them;)
Actually, your information is out-of-date. The new Socket 939 Athlon 64's (both the + and FX series) feature a dual-channel memory controller for unregistered DDR SDRAM (this is one of the big reasons for introducing the new socket in the first place).
This still leaves me wondering why an Opteron 250 (2.4GHz, 1MB L2 cache) seems to so seriously outperform an Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2GHz, 512KB L2 cache).
Microcode updates aren't permanent though - you need to reload them every time the machine boots. So clearly you would need to reload these "hacks" using a piece of software during the boot process.
Also, the article admits that it's "very unlikely" that a particular processor could be fried using a dodgy microcode update, so why even mention it? It would be much easier to write a BIOS flashing virus, I believe a few of these did exist at one point (although the old memory is failing).
I doubt the hoops you'd need to jump through to write such a thing for Intel processors are no higher than for AMD processors, and as such, this is just FUD.
Anandtech originally posted an article which was a comparison of the Intel Xeon Nocona ("3.6F") and the AMD Athlon 64 3500+. The Xeon "won" most of the benchmarks by a good amount.
The criticisms were that the Xeon is not a desktop CPU, or vice-versa, the Athlon is not a workstation/server CPU. But are they so different? The Xeon has 1MB L2 cache, and so does the P4 Prescott (and presumably Prescott with x86-64 enabled), and both run at the same speed.
Similarly, the 3500+ runs at 2.2GHz and has a 512KB L2 cache, whilst the Opteron 250 runs at 2.4GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
With this in mind, can anyone explain to me why the Opteron seems to perform much better? The benchmarks appear to show the Xeon trouncing the A64 and the Opteron 250 trouncing the very same Xeon in 64-bit.
So what's the deal? Are AMD's desktop chips choked on 512KB of L2 cache (and yet the new Socket 939 A64s seem to be dropping back to 512KB L2 cache, whereas a few of the Socket 754 chips had a full 1MB).
I'm no processor expert, I just wondered if anyone could explain the "big difference".
Provided you have a NUMA-aware operating system, that is. The OS needs to know which memory is attached to which processor, since access to memory attached to the same processor on which a thread is running will obviously be faster and lower latency than going across hypertransport to a different processor and waiting for an answer.
Every major browser now blocks the web variety (including IE, thanks to XP SP2). Microsoft also finally decided disabling Messenger and adding a firewall to their operating system was a good idea. Pity it took them so long to realise this.
And now, just for good measure, they're illegal too.
Well, OSS is now deprecated and has been effectively relegated to second place behind ALSA for some time now. However, there are still issues with what people put on top of ALSA, things like esd, aRts, or whatever.
Unfortunately, it's the chicken-and-egg problem (officially known as "Network Externalities"). Hardware manufacturers won't write drivers until lots of people use Linux, and lots of people won't use Linux until there are drivers. What's really needed is the backing of some major coperations to drive development, like say, IBM, or HP, or Nov.... oh wait...
The original fire was no doubt caused by early open-source advocates protesting against Babbage's patents on the Difference Engine!
With that in mind, if some of you OSS fellows fancy meeting me Arlington, Virginia for a re-enactment of this great event, be sure to bring matches, gasoline and plenty of firelighters.
I notice that you currently own the name "slashdot.org". Our research shows you never trademarked this name. Last week, I applied for a trademark on the terms "slashdot", "slashdot.org" and "slashdot.com" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your domain immediately, or face legal proceedings.
But whenever I use Windows, I prefer the command-line SSH program that comes with cygwin. Configuring options for SSH is just a chore when I seem to have learned all the switches by heart.
From the article, this sounds like Gates is interested in buying Nintendo, not Microsoft. But I guess if he owned them both and said "now let's merge" they'd jump to it.
Slashdot Mirror
There's been some speculation that articles like this are paid-for (NOTE: they always seem to be posted by CmdrTaco).
Yeah, and 3MB of that is Google adverts!
Is this the first production kernel with a w.x.y.z numbering scheme instead of the more usual w.x.y? I can't help but wonder how many poorly written version checking Perl scripts this will break...
When the LCD was released, I'm sure the screens were "1000 $ for one crappy INCH!". No-one is suggesting that normal people on normal salaries go and replace all their hard disks with flash right this moment, but who are we to predict the situation in 5 or 10 years? It's quite possible by then that hard disks will have hit some kind of technology limit making them more expensive for the multi-terabyte capacity we'll have by then, and flash has reduced in price to the point where it's equally as cheap or cheaper. I'm sure you won't be "going back to IDE" then.
I doubt it, since display resolution is limited to 800x600.
Thanks for the info. I had been following the reaction at Anand's but didn't realise quite how bad these figures were. I'd give you mod points if I had them ;)
Actually, your information is out-of-date. The new Socket 939 Athlon 64's (both the + and FX series) feature a dual-channel memory controller for unregistered DDR SDRAM (this is one of the big reasons for introducing the new socket in the first place).
This still leaves me wondering why an Opteron 250 (2.4GHz, 1MB L2 cache) seems to so seriously outperform an Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2GHz, 512KB L2 cache).
Microcode updates aren't permanent though - you need to reload them every time the machine boots. So clearly you would need to reload these "hacks" using a piece of software during the boot process.
Also, the article admits that it's "very unlikely" that a particular processor could be fried using a dodgy microcode update, so why even mention it? It would be much easier to write a BIOS flashing virus, I believe a few of these did exist at one point (although the old memory is failing). I doubt the hoops you'd need to jump through to write such a thing for Intel processors are no higher than for AMD processors, and as such, this is just FUD.
Anandtech originally posted an article which was a comparison of the Intel Xeon Nocona ("3.6F") and the AMD Athlon 64 3500+. The Xeon "won" most of the benchmarks by a good amount.
The criticisms were that the Xeon is not a desktop CPU, or vice-versa, the Athlon is not a workstation/server CPU. But are they so different? The Xeon has 1MB L2 cache, and so does the P4 Prescott (and presumably Prescott with x86-64 enabled), and both run at the same speed.
Similarly, the 3500+ runs at 2.2GHz and has a 512KB L2 cache, whilst the Opteron 250 runs at 2.4GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
With this in mind, can anyone explain to me why the Opteron seems to perform much better? The benchmarks appear to show the Xeon trouncing the A64 and the Opteron 250 trouncing the very same Xeon in 64-bit.
So what's the deal? Are AMD's desktop chips choked on 512KB of L2 cache (and yet the new Socket 939 A64s seem to be dropping back to 512KB L2 cache, whereas a few of the Socket 754 chips had a full 1MB).
I'm no processor expert, I just wondered if anyone could explain the "big difference".
Provided you have a NUMA-aware operating system, that is. The OS needs to know which memory is attached to which processor, since access to memory attached to the same processor on which a thread is running will obviously be faster and lower latency than going across hypertransport to a different processor and waiting for an answer.
Or just download XP Service Pack 2, released yesterday, which will do this for you ;)
(BTW, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, I do think SP2 is a positive step forward for platform with regards to security).
Or just download XP Service Pack 2, released yesterday, which will do this for you.
Evidence:
Every major browser now blocks the web variety (including IE, thanks to XP SP2). Microsoft also finally decided disabling Messenger and adding a firewall to their operating system was a good idea. Pity it took them so long to realise this.
And now, just for good measure, they're illegal too.
I say, good riddance.
Well, OSS is now deprecated and has been effectively relegated to second place behind ALSA for some time now. However, there are still issues with what people put on top of ALSA, things like esd, aRts, or whatever.
Unfortunately, it's the chicken-and-egg problem (officially known as "Network Externalities"). Hardware manufacturers won't write drivers until lots of people use Linux, and lots of people won't use Linux until there are drivers. What's really needed is the backing of some major coperations to drive development, like say, IBM, or HP, or Nov.... oh wait...
ALSA was released 6 years ago, and OSS was released even earlier. What's your point?
The original fire was no doubt caused by early open-source advocates protesting against Babbage's patents on the Difference Engine!
With that in mind, if some of you OSS fellows fancy meeting me Arlington, Virginia for a re-enactment of this great event, be sure to bring matches, gasoline and plenty of firelighters.
No, I think you should learn to spell "than" rather than use the word "then".
I notice that you currently own the name "slashdot.org". Our research shows you never trademarked this name. Last week, I applied for a trademark on the terms "slashdot", "slashdot.org" and "slashdot.com" and these have been granted. Therefore I require you to hand over your domain immediately, or face legal proceedings.
Yours Sincerely,
I.P. Freely
Best. Idea. Ever.
But whenever I use Windows, I prefer the command-line SSH program that comes with cygwin. Configuring options for SSH is just a chore when I seem to have learned all the switches by heart.
From the article, this sounds like Gates is interested in buying Nintendo, not Microsoft. But I guess if he owned them both and said "now let's merge" they'd jump to it.