On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Gus Wirth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > RB W wrote: > > I'm looking for some insight and/or advice in choosing between a > > couple laptop systems. These are just the key factors for figuring out > > Linux compatibility and with respect to using virtualization such as > > Xen, KVM, etc.. > > > >>From what I have been able to track down the Intel system should > > "outperform" the AMD system by a little bit. Both systems feature > > hardware virtualization of their type. Both systems can be expanded to > > 4GB of RAM. I looked for faster 7200RPM HD for both (size is different > > but speed is more important I think for the intended purposes). > > > > There is a L2 cache difference and from what I understand that is a > > large reason for the difference between the Intel and AMD in > > performance. Here are the comparison systems: > > > > 1.) > > Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 2.00GHz 2M L2 Cache, 800Mhz Dual Core > > 2.0GB, DDR2-667 SDRAM, 1 DIMM (4GB Max) > > 120GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM > > Intel Integrated Graphics Media Accelerator X3100 (965GM) > > > > 2.) > > AMD Turion 64 X2 TL- 60 2.00GHz 1M L2 Cache (2x512) > > 2.0GB, DDR2-667 SDRAM, 1 DIMM (4GB Max) > > 80GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 7200RPM > > ATI Radeon X1270 > > > > > > If I want to go cheap and trim @$200 from this setup I could do the > > following. Would this be a huge step down from the above two systems? > > This CPU still has the Pacifica virtualization but slower HD and less > > Max RAM. > > > > 3.) > > AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-58 1.9GHz 1M L2 Cache (2x512) > > 2GB DDR2 (Not expandable) > > 160GB 5400RPM > > ATI Radeon X1270 > > > > I did read about some delays in Linux drivers for the ATI video but > > things will work under Linux with the proprietary fglrx driver. The > > Intel X3100 video chip is a part of the 965GM apparently so it should > > work if the rest of the Intel parts are included and it appears so. > > Performance is going to be an issue if you intend to do much with > virtualization. Don't skimp on the hard drive, so that leaves out option > 3. Depending on what virtual machines you will be running, the ability > to expand RAM to 4GB will be a plus. I run a single virtual machine at a > time with 1GB RAM in my host system and it performs adequately by giving > the M$ Windows virtual machine 512MB RAM. Linux virtual machines do fine > on 256MB RAM.
My first goal will be to get a fully Featured/bloated FC8 type distro running then secondly a much leaner Ubuntu system and finally a CentOS server running. Later I will want to put some stripped down version of XP on also. I have a couple live BART type XP CD's and my thought is Iif I can get that in an instance I can get dedicated storage via SMB/CIFS (I would probably be asking to much to wish for a UnionFS situation with a LiveXPCD ;^)... > > The video can also be a performance killer. The Intel solution uses > shared memory, which means memory access has to be divided up between > the graphics and the CPU which leads to contention. You don't specify if > the AMD solution with the Radeon X1270 has dedicated memory or not. If > you have dedicated memory for the video, you are going to get better > performance because you won't have memory contention. > I was thinking that if under XEN everything is networked I could run only one instance using the actual video and then either SSH to the CentOS and other instances and/or VNC/ssh forward the GUI apps as needed. Do I still run into contention in this scenario? In effect I was thinking of running every instance "headless" except for the one I want to "See". I would be comfortable with this because Linux is getting to the point where "pagers" have so many variations you can segregate anything into any number of virtual presentations of local and remote apps. > If you need maximum Linux compatibility now and want only open source > software, I'd go with the Intel solution. If you don't mind using one of > the latest Linux distributions and the proprietary ATI driver, the AMD > solution sounds good. AMD, who now owns ATI, has released the specs for > their chips and full open source drivers should be available in a few > months. See > <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=r500_glxgears&num=1> > for good news about this. > The ATI proprietary driver did give me trouble until I finally got it at which point it ran pretty well. I have a feeling that the inability to display the FC8 system to an external monitor is an ATI driver issue... > There are other things in the laptop that might give you problems. > Wireless is one of the big ones. There have also been problems with ACPI > and getting the laptop to hibernate, if you want that capability. > I looked around and others have either got the wireless to work under Linux or ndiswrapped the wireless. The first two are Dell's and the 3rd one is an Acer. > The only real way to tell which machine would be best for you would be > to try them out in real life. Any way you can rent one for a week or two > to try it out? Barring that, have you found any reviews where Linux is > specifically mentioned as having been installed and tested? > > Gus These are mail order except for #3 so I don't think so. BTW I found some interesting resources along the way in researching this issue: Intel CPU features: http://processorfinder.intel.com Refurbished Laptops: http://www.usanotebook.com/ http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/notebooks?c=us&cs=22&l=en&s=dfh Intel Graphics and Linux: http://www.intellinuxgraphics.org/ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
