On this day, 02-August-2007 10:27 PM, Bob Sanders wrote:
P.V.Anthony, mused, then expounded:
I must say that I love the intel drivers for the network and sata. If
only amd has some chip sets for their own cpus and good open source
drivers for their chip sets. Intel has that covered and I think the
intel drivers are open source.
It's more the chipset than the drivers. The Intel GigE chip controller
has a built-in tcp offload engine that removes cpu loading of network
traffic, if enabled in the Linux kernel.
Of the available chipsets for AMD support, only Nvidia has a proprietary
driver, thus the need for the reverse engineered driver. Most non-Nvidia
chipset platform for AMD use either Broadcom or Intel GigE chips. And the
Broadcom drivers have been well tested over the years. So, other than
TCP offload, I wouldn't avoid evaluating a specific option due to a concern
about drivers.
SATA - again with AMD you have some options - nVidia or Broadcom, either work
fine,
as does the Intel SATA controller. That said, be cautious of using the Intel
software raid from the bios. I've not found it to be consistantly implemented,
nor for it to always work well. Generally, unless a real hardware raid is
offered,
such as a LSI 1064 or 1068 SAS/SATA chip, stay with kernel supported software
raid.
And SATA in general, in rack mount enclosures, can suffer in performace,
especially
in 1U enclosures due to fan vibration. Inspect the fan mounting and insure that
the fans are isolated from the chassis with rubber mounting bushings or
grommits.
And make sure the latest bios, bmc, and other firmware is installed and up to
date!
It's important.
Don't confuse yourself by thinking that because Intel makes it's own chipset,
that
it's a better platform than anything available for AMD. Intel has two goals for
making it's own chipset - vertical control of it's market, thus maximizing it's
profit,
and because OEMs don't want to have to think about having to do any real
engingeering
when putting their logo on a platform. AMD's being forced into the platform
direction
because of OEMs.
ALso, consider that while Intel does have very good engineering, it's entire
platform
is proprietary. Only recently did it open up it's socket to counter AMD with
programmable, pluggable ASICs.
AMD on the other hand runs on an open bus architecture. So anyone can add
things to it,
with minimal licensing - making something for HyperTransport requires joining
the
consortium (and it's not part of AMD). So it open source is important, I'd
think
you'd want an open platform, where you get to choose the best infrastructure
for your computing needs.
Tyan offers both platforms to best meet what you think you're needs are. And
you should
look at those needs in that perspective. From your mix of apps, I'm not so
sure the
Intel platform is going to be the best. It really depends upon the overall
mix. If
you have more active database access than network traffic, then something with
a higher
sustained memory bandwidth, along with higher i/o bandwidth is going to provide
much
better performance. If the mix is mostly crunching on data retrieved, thus lots
of FP or integer activity, than cpus with large caches and speed are more
important.
Typically, when compute power is more important to the mix, the Intel Core2
platform
will perform the best. When memory and i/o bandwidth are important - database
transactions, the AMD platform delivers a higher sustained bandwidth. And if
the job mix is very peaky - lots of variations with long periods of lull time,
the AMD platform will deliver overall power savings and require less cooling for
a decrese in peak performance.
Bob
-
Thank you very much. Real cool advice. This information is really very
useful.
P.V.Anthony
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
