I'm not going to get into the Intel D525MW debate but I will run some tests on my system soon and report the results. The D525MW has been a great board for me. Zero failures and they just run and run.
Reviewing Neweggs stock of ITX boards it is obvious that the Intel D525 chipset based ITX boards are going away. I'm surprised they are still available. Has anyone tried an AMD Hudson E-350 based ITX board or similar with LinuxCNC? Unless I can find a good reliable alternative to the D525MW motherboard I will probably buy a batch of 10 or so to cover some upcoming projects and provide spare parts but those will only last so long. Dave On 12/12/2012 10:19 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 10:06:41 John Stewart did opine: > > >> Hi Sven; >> >> I'm not saying you are wrong; and I thank you for posting the results >> of your testing. >> > I will say it. If its a 64 bit install, then it is not the rtai patched > kernel, and the results predictably will be poorer. > > >>> And today I did. >>> Running 2x2 GB RAM to maximize the I/O. Latency test, one glxgears and >>> a Firefox to linuxcnc resulted in 15 849. Turned the graphics >>> resolution down to 1024x768 and I was able to keep it a bit lower, >>> But only a bit as I passed 14 000 for the same test. I still don't >>> believe in you guys saying that a D525MW is able to stay below 10 000 >>> in a latency test. >>> > Neither of my machines has ever exceeded 8u-s, with only one stick of > memory in them, 2Gb IOW. Latencyplot has been running on the lathes > machine for about an hour, base-thread peak is 5 u-s, servo-thread peak is > 5 u-s. > > >> I don't think you changed the graphics driver just by lowering the >> latency. I have not done much Linux stuff in years, but I'm wondering >> what X graphics driver you are using? Can you force the graphics driver >> into some VGA totally software render mode? >> >> Also remote into it, and run it as a headless station. I should do this >> and see how it performs. Maybe next time I have a few hours around the >> house (hah! not in the next few weeks…) I'll run that test. >> >> >>> One thing though, I filled one of the boards with 8 GB RAM (2x4). That >>> board is running 64 bit Ubuntu in the office and it happily reported 8 >>> GB even though the hardware spec says max 4 GB. It seems that 4 GB is >>> a soft limit. >>> >> Running a 32 bit kernel? I don't think you'll be able to address over 4g >> via sw. Maybe they expect people to run windows, not Linux! >> >> Interesting that you can put the RAM in, as like you, I had assumed that >> it was not just a SW limit. >> >> Thanks; >> >> John A. Stewart. >> > A 64 bit linux that has a problem with even 64Gb of ram should have a bug > report filed. 32 bit however has to jump through some time consuming > hoops. > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free >> Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant >> support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add >> services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Emc-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users >> > > Cheers, Gene > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
