Any problems with Linux?

[Steven]

Hi all. I am about to become the owner of an Athlon 64 based computer.
I intend to load a version of Linux onto part of the harddrive and am
wondering what the best x86-64 distro is. I have used Mandrake (I hate
the new name, Mandriva) for several years, but am considering Fedora
for this machine.

Anyone encounter problems with any distros or other experiences with
64 software?

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Thomas A. Horsley]

Anyone encounter problems with any distros or other experiences with

64 software?

I'm seeing some weird stuff that looks like in-memory disc caches being
clobbered on a dual processor Opteron at work with Redhat enterprise 4,
but it is entirely possible it is something I'm doing rather than
something wrong with redhat.

Whenever I run my debugger testbed, random files will get corrupted in
random ways, then rebooting (or waiting a long time for the cache to get
used up by other files) gets them all back to normal (which is why I suspect
the cache and not actual disc problems).

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Hi all. I am about to become the owner of an Athlon 64 based computer.
I intend to load a version of Linux onto part of the harddrive and am
wondering what the best x86-64 distro is. I have used Mandrake (I hate
the new name, Mandriva) for several years, but am considering Fedora
for this machine.

Anyone encounter problems with any distros or other experiences with
64 software?

Thanks,
Steve

Fedora Core 3 works fine, Mandrake 10.1 doesn't (haven't haven't tried the
2005-LE edition although the betas for the 32 bit version wouldn't install
on an Nforce3-250 with an SATA drive). I have FC3 on two A64s, a 3400+ and
a 3800+. Both the 32 bit a 64 bit versions work reliably. I'm mostly
running 32 Bit FC3 with a custom kernel (I use Win4Lin). In my custom 32
bit kernel I added the A64 power governors, I use the on-demand governor
which keeps the A64 in a low power state most of the time. When the box
isn't doing any heavy duty crunching the CPU is cool enough so that the
CPU fan is mostly off.

 

[fb]

Fedora Core 3 works fine, Mandrake 10.1 doesn't (haven't haven't tried the
2005-LE edition although the betas for the 32 bit version wouldn't install
on an Nforce3-250 with an SATA drive). I have FC3 on two A64s, a 3400+ and
a 3800+. Both the 32 bit a 64 bit versions work reliably. I'm mostly
running 32 Bit FC3 with a custom kernel (I use Win4Lin). In my custom 32
bit kernel I added the A64 power governors, I use the on-demand governor
which keeps the A64 in a low power state most of the time. When the box
isn't doing any heavy duty crunching the CPU is cool enough so that the
CPU fan is mostly off.

Slackware 10.1 is a good choice also..Hve it running on an NF3-250
DFI..all drivers including network card and sound work fine.

Fb

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

Fedora Core 3 works fine, Mandrake 10.1 doesn't (haven't haven't tried the
2005-LE edition although the betas for the 32 bit version wouldn't install
on an Nforce3-250 with an SATA drive). I have FC3 on two A64s, a 3400+ and
a 3800+. Both the 32 bit a 64 bit versions work reliably. I'm mostly
running 32 Bit FC3 with a custom kernel (I use Win4Lin). In my custom 32
bit kernel I added the A64 power governors, I use the on-demand governor
which keeps the A64 in a low power state most of the time. When the box
isn't doing any heavy duty crunching the CPU is cool enough so that the
CPU fan is mostly off.

Hi,

We recently bought a dual-opteron NAS server with 4 RAID 5 SATA HDs.
They shipped it with FC3_x86 kernel. Right now we are running:
2.6.10-1.770_FC3smp
following an upgrade. I asked the supplier (fairly reputable supplier of
linux servers) why they are not using the 64 bit kernel and was told
that it was not stable enough.
The system has run okay, but it is not exactly fast. But when I recently
upgraded the firmware on the RAID controller (3ware) the first thing the
tech guy asked was why aren't you running the 64 bit kernel? They have
specific linux 64 bit drivers, so I could'nt use those.
So I'd be interested to know if I should upgrade to a 64 bit kernel? Can
anyone confirm the doubts to be had over the stability of this kernel?

Sorry to shift the originally asked question a little!

Thanks!

Jonathan.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Hi,

We recently bought a dual-opteron NAS server with 4 RAID 5 SATA HDs.
They shipped it with FC3_x86 kernel. Right now we are running:
2.6.10-1.770_FC3smp
following an upgrade. I asked the supplier (fairly reputable supplier of
linux servers) why they are not using the 64 bit kernel and was told
that it was not stable enough.
The system has run okay, but it is not exactly fast. But when I recently
upgraded the firmware on the RAID controller (3ware) the first thing the
tech guy asked was why aren't you running the 64 bit kernel? They have
specific linux 64 bit drivers, so I could'nt use those.
So I'd be interested to know if I should upgrade to a 64 bit kernel? Can
anyone confirm the doubts to be had over the stability of this kernel?

Sorry to shift the originally asked question a little!

Thanks!

Jonathan.

Why don't you install FC3-64 on a separate partition and give it a try.
I'm doing CAE workstation type things on my systems which is compute
intensive rather then I/O intensive so my experiences aren't completely
relevant to your situation. However I haven't noticed any problems with
the 64 bit version of FC3. But if 3Ware is recommending that you run it on
a 64 bit system then I'd do that. 3Ware is a very Linux savvy company, I'm
sure that they've done extensive testing of their drivers on 64 bit
systems.

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

snipped loads...
e.

Why don't you install FC3-64 on a separate partition and give it a try.
I'm doing CAE workstation type things on my systems which is compute
intensive rather then I/O intensive so my experiences aren't completely
relevant to your situation. However I haven't noticed any problems with
the 64 bit version of FC3. But if 3Ware is recommending that you run it on
a 64 bit system then I'd do that. 3Ware is a very Linux savvy company, I'm
sure that they've done extensive testing of their drivers on 64 bit
systems.

Yes, I think that you are right. In speaking with the 3ware people they
seemed to know a lot more abt linux than those who configure the
servers. So I think I'll just look for a very recent, stable 64 bit kernel.

Jonathan.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

snipped loads...
e.

Yes, I think that you are right. In speaking with the 3ware people they
seemed to know a lot more abt linux than those who configure the
servers. So I think I'll just look for a very recent, stable 64 bit kernel.

Jonathan.

I'd do a separate install of FC3-64. FC3-64 has a lot more then just the
kernel compiled in 64 bit mode. Once you done the install and the updates
you will have a very recent kernel.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Il Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:30:25 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto

We recently bought a dual-opteron NAS server with 4 RAID 5 SATA HDs. They
shipped it with FC3_x86 kernel. Right now we are running:
2.6.10-1.770_FC3smp
following an upgrade. I asked the supplier (fairly reputable supplier of
linux servers) why they are not using the 64 bit kernel and was told that
it was not stable enough.

Which one? Which tests have they done that are unknown at all to linux
community?
What problems they have observed?

It's the first time I heard something of this kind. Let us all know this
"problems" they have...

The system has run okay, but it is not exactly fast. But when I recently
upgraded the firmware on the RAID controller (3ware) the first thing the
tech guy asked was why aren't you running the 64 bit kernel? They have
specific linux 64 bit drivers, so I could'nt use those. So I'd be
interested to know if I should upgrade to a 64 bit kernel? Can anyone
confirm the doubts to be had over the stability of this kernel?

Is that a binary only driver? How strange 64 bit is "not stable enough"
for them.....

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

Il Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:30:25 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto





Which one? Which tests have they done that are unknown at all to linux
community?
What problems they have observed?

It's the first time I heard something of this kind. Let us all know this
"problems" they have...

I'll get in touch with their tech support and try and find out. So far,
the tech support has been very vague, so I do not expect good answers.

Is that a binary only driver? How strange 64 bit is "not stable enough"
for them.....

Yes, it is binary only. just to clarify though, the people who sold us
the server are those not using the 64-bit kernel. 3ware were very
surprised, and told us, therefore, that we'd have to use their 32 bit
drivers.

Thanks for the responses by the way. I'm going to follow up on them all.

Jonathan.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Il Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:07:28 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto

I'll get in touch with their tech support and try and find out. So far,
the tech support has been very vague, so I do not expect good answers.

I would bet their statement was sloppy at least. I'm not accusing you of
course, but these kind of statements are just fud and nothing else.
I'm wondering if they have ever installed, let alone used, a 64 bit
distribution. And if they've ever seen 64 bit hardware before AMD64.

Yes, it is binary only. just to clarify though, the people who sold us the
server are those not using the 64-bit kernel. 3ware were very surprised,
and told us, therefore, that we'd have to use their 32 bit drivers.

I'm always very suspicious about this hardware with binary only driver,
for just one version of the kernel. Recompiling a whole kernel is a matter
of minutes with those amd64, if they're unable to deploy a 64 bit module
then something fishy is going on.
Do you absolutely need this raid?

Thanks for the responses by the way. I'm going to follow up on them all.

Jonathan.

You're welcome.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Il Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:07:28 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto


I would bet their statement was sloppy at least. I'm not accusing you of
course, but these kind of statements are just fud and nothing else.
I'm wondering if they have ever installed, let alone used, a 64 bit
distribution. And if they've ever seen 64 bit hardware before AMD64.

I'm always very suspicious about this hardware with binary only driver,
for just one version of the kernel. Recompiling a whole kernel is a matter
of minutes with those amd64, if they're unable to deploy a 64 bit module
then something fishy is going on.
Do you absolutely need this raid?

You're welcome.

3Ware drivers are in the kernel they aren't binary.

 

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Slackware 10.1 is a good choice also..Hve it running on an NF3-250
DFI..all drivers including network card and sound work fine.

While I'm a Slackware user, I have it on good sound ground that
Slackware 10.1 and below are 32bit, and will remain 32bit, to keep
things compatible with the x86 world. I'm running it too, but would
need to cross compile to create a 64bit kernel.

If you're wanting to stay in the Slackware world, check out
SLAMD64. Fred Emmott ported Slackware 10.1 to x84_64, and it's working
good so far. you'll find it at http://www.slamd64.com.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: (e-mail address removed)
Unix Systems Administrator, | (e-mail address removed)
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCdUIUyBkZmuMZ8L8RAj/xAJ0VD54zoULfUar/OteTnJVk8PfvagCfbhm5
FuVI7LxQMHfwGVww9gcqV7Q=
=Zfjs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

3Ware drivers are in the kernel they aren't binary.

They were, but I just downloaded the latest drivers from 3ware and they
came as binaries. I had to install those that matched the kernel used.
i.e., in my case, 32-bit. These new drivers allow for on-line expansion
of the RAID arrays (9000-series RAID controllers).

And I agree, that the best thing to do is recompile the kernel. Ahead of
doing this, I asked the server suppliers to give me their configuration
files (ie from make config or whatever) so I'd have a good starting
point for our own recompilation. They didn't have any as they just use
the vanilla kernel. And that's bad. Admittedly I only use vanilla
kernels for my personal use of linux, but then I'm not in the business
of configuring and selling linux servers.

Jonathan.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Il Mon, 02 May 2005 16:33:12 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto

They didn't have any as they just use the
vanilla kernel. And that's bad. Admittedly I only use vanilla kernels for
my personal use of linux, but then I'm not in the business of configuring
and selling linux servers.

Why do you think that vanilla kernel is a bad thing on a server?

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

I don't think that it is necessarily. I'm assuming that the better
performance is to be had by building support only for the hardware that
you have into the kernel. I guess not. I honestly don't know the trade
off. What are your thoughts?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Il Mon, 02 May 2005 21:58:25 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto

I don't think that it is necessarily. I'm assuming that the better
performance is to be had by building support only for the hardware that
you have into the kernel. I guess not. I honestly don't know the trade
off. What are your thoughts?

Please do not top post.

We were talking about different issues. "Vanilla kernel" means to pick a
kernel source from www.kernel.org and compile it at your wishes.
A "non vanilla" kernel is one with patches applied from other sources,
like the one from Fedora and Mandrake, unlike Slackware.
You are talking about the same kernel compiled with different modules.

I don't see relevant speed differences when compiling vanilla kernel with
different modules, unless of course you run a kernel compiled for i386 on
a k8.

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

Il Mon, 02 May 2005 21:58:25 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto



Please do not top post.
Sorry!


We were talking about different issues. "Vanilla kernel" means to pick a
kernel source from www.kernel.org and compile it at your wishes.
A "non vanilla" kernel is one with patches applied from other sources,
like the one from Fedora and Mandrake, unlike Slackware.
You are talking about the same kernel compiled with different modules.

I don't see relevant speed differences when compiling vanilla kernel with
different modules, unless of course you run a kernel compiled for i386 on
a k8.

Yes, we are running a kernel compiled for an i386 on our Opteron system.
That kind of harps back to my original post, which was asking if
anyone could confirm issued running the 64bit kernel, as cited by our
suppliers. So instead, are we likely to suffer speed issues?

Jonathan.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Il Wed, 11 May 2005 23:38:37 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto

Yes, we are running a kernel compiled for an i386 on our Opteron system.
That kind of harps back to my original post, which was asking if
anyone could confirm issued running the 64bit kernel, as cited by our
suppliers. So instead, are we likely to suffer speed issues?

Yes, you do.
Running an i386 on an Opteron is an insane waste of resources and speed.
Never heard any "issues" for a 64 bit kernel. It's more than 10 years that
is working nicely for alpha and some sparc architectures.

Just a small and not even so extreme example of 32 vs 64 bit performance:

oggenc -Q -q5 song.wav

32bit 21.975s
64bit 14.584s

Do you still think 32 bit code on an Opteron is a smart move?

 

[Jonathan Oakley]

Il Wed, 11 May 2005 23:38:37 +0000, Jonathan Oakley ha scritto




Yes, you do.
Running an i386 on an Opteron is an insane waste of resources and speed.
Never heard any "issues" for a 64 bit kernel. It's more than 10 years that
is working nicely for alpha and some sparc architectures.

Just a small and not even so extreme example of 32 vs 64 bit performance:

oggenc -Q -q5 song.wav

32bit 21.975s
64bit 14.584s

Do you still think 32 bit code on an Opteron is a smart move?

No, I certainly do not. Thank you very much for all of the information.

Jonathan.