AMD64 chipset Linux support ....

[William A. Mahaffey III]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:

>On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:27 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>  
>
>>.... I am looking at the Asus A8V Mbd (Via K8T800 chipset,
>>~$62.00 on pricewatch) for a hypothetical Opteron box, lightweight
>>LAN server.
>>    
>>
>
>You don't want to buy a desktop chipset for a server.  People do this
>all-the-time, even for Intel (e.g., i845/i865), and pay the price in I/O
>limitations and stability.
>
>Paying $200 for an entry-level, but true _server_ mainboard instead of
>$100 for a desktop mainboard is well worth the added $100.
>
>The entry-level ServerWorks HT1000 is a nice solution with a single
>PCI-X channel for Socket-939 for under $200.  Adding a HT2000 typically
>brings up the cost over $300 to what the nVidia nForce Pro with 40 PCIe
>channels plus the AMD8131/8132 dual-PCI-X typically costs.
>
>Intel's entry-level 72xx series (based on a license of the ServerWorks
>IV/Grand Champion) starts with dual PCIe x8 I/O in the 7230 for under
>$200 (sometimes under $150) and you can add an ESB6x00 series for PCI-X
>for under $300.
>
>Again, _never_ use a desktop chipset for server duties.  And especially
>_not_ a "consumer" rated/tested (e.g., i865 instead of i875).
>
>  
>
>>How is Linux support for this chipset ?
>>    
>>
>
>ViA typically has ATA controller issues (long story).
>Off-chipset is recommended in many cases.
>
>  
>
>>I have an older (S370 PIII) box, this one as it happens, w/
>>a Via 694 chipset & love it.
>>    
>>
>
>The 694 had many performance and stability issues.  Especially early
>revisions.  Latter 694X versions fared better, but were still _not_ a
>_server_ chipset.
>
>E.g., the 694 still had only 1/4-1/8 the I/O of a ServerSet IIILE which
>started at $250 when they were new (and under $200 later on).  I
>replaced many i440BX/GX and 693A/694X dual-processor systems with the
>IIILE and file server performance was instantly 3x (literally, +200%).
>
>  
>
>>Can I look forward to the same great performance & reliability under
>>Linux (FC5 most likely) w/ the K8T800 ? TIA ....
>>    
>>
>
>I guess if you're idea of performance and reliability is low, yes.  ;->
>
>-- Bryan
>
>P.S.  William -- you're not going to believe this, but I wrote this and
>was just about to send and just realized you posted it.  I honestly
>wrote it _before_ I noticed it was you.
>
>P.P.S.  Lay off the desktop chipsets -- seriously.  I'll loan you an
>Intel 72xx (or even a 75xx) series -- you'll see what I mean!  ;->
>
>  
>

Oooohhhhhhh, you're just too kind :-). When I say lightweight, I *mean* 
lightweight. NO public access, NO apache, NO DNS, NO several dozen users 
at any 1 time, just CPU, RAM, & code to run ad nauseum. It *will* live 
at runlevel 3, but the server traits end there, for the most part. I was 
mostly asking about reasonably complete/stable Linux support for that 
chipset, decent %-age of full speed for RAM-intensive calculations, etc. 
e.g. good OS/chipset interaction for my somewhat truncated requirements. 
Someone else (another list) indicated all was well, care to dispute that ?

-- 
	William A. Mahaffey III

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                           -- Gen. George S. Patton

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/amd64-list/attachments/20060711/ca5c8b9b/attachment.htm>