Linux-Hardware Digest #678, Volume #10 Tue, 6 Jul 99 01:13:28 EDT
Contents:
ATI All-in-Wonder 128 ("Richard S")
Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server? (killbill)
Re: HPUX <--> RH60 NFS performance problem (David Crooke)
Re: a quality 3 button mouse (John Doe)
Re: Summary and Clarification (Celeron, what's the catch?) (Chris Robato Yao)
Re: @home schitzophrenia with RH (Joe)
Re: dual processor setup? (Bryan)
ATI All-in-Wonder 128 ("Richard S")
Error opening /dev/audio (Kevin J Tinkler)
Re: modem mystery (Peter Teuben)
Re: Adaptec 2920 SCSI controller (Joe)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (kls)
modem mystery (Kenneth Been)
Re: dual processor setup? ("Andrew J. Norman")
Yamaha MU10XG Midi Support? (Tim Roberts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Richard S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATI All-in-Wonder 128
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:21:16 -0500
After dual booting Windows 98 and Linux-Mandrake 5.3 distribution, I =
purchased the ATI All-in-Wonder 128 card to do some video capturing. The =
good news is that it performs as promised under Windows, the bad news is =
I have apparently sacrificed Linux as there is no XServer available from =
XFree86. Does anyone know of any software, open source or commercial =
which will get my GUI back up and running.=20
--=20
E-Mail is Anti-Spam Enabled
Do not use your "Reply" Button
Click: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
------------------------------
From: killbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux
Subject: Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 02:39:02 GMT
In article <7lrlvf$ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Hello, I'm new to Linux. I would like to know how powerful of a
> machine you would need to run Linux as a server? Let's say you had a
> DSL connection, would you be able to use Linux as a webserver?
> What would be the best release for me to start with? Red Hat?
As to power of the machine, I set up a Linux server for the training
room of the company where I work to allow Perl, C++, and web development
training, and it was only a 25 MHz 486 with 8MB of ram. It continues to
work fine, and will support file serving, web serving, and some C++
compiling simultaneously. For what you want, a 486 will be fine, but if
you can scrounge up 16MB or more of RAM you will get MUCH better
performance all around. It will run fine with 8MB, but if you can get
16MB, you will be hard pressed to tell any speed difference between
using Linux on a 486 and Windows on a pentium 100 (IMHO).
My personal recomendation for a first foray into Linux would be Red Hat.
While it is not the end-all be-all distribution, it is well done, well
known, and well documented. This would be a big help to a newbie.
Watch for other recomendations... there is another distribution out
there (the name escapes me at the moment) which has new user
friendlyness as it's claim to fame. It might be worth trying, but then
again you might be better off sticking to the same distribution (Red
Hat) that gets most of the public discussion.
I loosed a red hat 6.0 installation on a friend of mine that is new to
Linux as well (Hi Kevin!), and he has had pretty good luck with it so
far.
--
Bil Kilgallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--"I believe, what I believe, has made me what I am. I did not make
it, It is making me, it is the very truth of God, not the invention
of any man". Rich Mullins, quoting G.K. Chesterton.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: David Crooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.sys.hp.hpux,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: HPUX <--> RH60 NFS performance problem
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 02:31:43 GMT
NFS server support is not a strong point of Linux. Better to share files
by making the HP the server - I have seen >6Mb/sec sustained transfer
between a Dell P200 and a V-Class this way.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Doe)
Subject: Re: a quality 3 button mouse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 Jul 1999 23:23:30 -0500
My dream mouse is logitech first mouse. Buttons are soft to click.
$19.99 is too expensive.
On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:34:47 -0700, Tim Moore
>Yep. Do this about once a month. Same mouse.
>--
>direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
>
>"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
> WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Summary and Clarification (Celeron, what's the catch?)
Date: 6 Jul 1999 03:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Robato Yao)
In <7lo9iu$l9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "FM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>-> An overwhelming consensus against buying a computer from
>college
>
>I might or might not have much choice regarding this issue.
>This college has strict computer-ownership requirements and
>it will be a hassle to fit a new system into them. I have
>recently checked Dell's website and the price was fairly
>similar (Dell's definitely overpriced, at least as far as I
>know). Although I'm sure I can get a better deal outside, I
>might be eligible for financial aid if I buy one from
>college. (I'm still waiting for the mail package which
>should have all this relevent information including prices).
>
>-> Celeron's performance (favors comparably against PII/PIII
>for price/performance although trails slightly behind in
>some areas)
>
>I guess Celeron suffices for my purposes.
>
>-> Get K6-3/K7/*
>
>Well I don't think I really have any choice, if I buy one
>from college. I'll look into K6-2/3 if I get to choose my
>own system. I have neither the bucks nor the time for K7,
>having already ordered a small laptop.
>
>-> Celeron 300a has a shorter cache latency than a Celeron
>466 (Chris Robato Yao)
>
>Somehow I didn't quite understand how this is the case. So
>for CPU's, 300@450 is fastr than genuine 450? Or is this a
>particular case for Celerons?
These latencies are added to give certain margins on the processors.
Notice that cache latency utilities are sometimes used to make
overclocked Celerons work properly (particularly Cel 333s to 500s).
The latencies are quite small actually to bother. With 466 prices
going down now and 300a almost out of the market place except for
surplus, Cel 466 would be a better choice if you're planning to go the
Intel route. You get to keep the support and the warranty. You can't
overclock those branded PCs like the Dell junk you can buy in campus
stores.
Rgds,
Chris
>
>Thanks a lot for all the replies.
>
>Dan.
>
>
(And the NUMBER ONE top oxy-MORON
1. Microsoft Works
---From the Top 50 Oxymorons (thanks to Richard Kennedy)
------------------------------
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: @home schitzophrenia with RH
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:58:51 GMT
On 2 Jul 1999, Johan Kullstam wrote:
> "i4cmyf8" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've been trying to get my @home cable modem service for quite some time now
> > through 2 seperate redhat distributions. first with 5.2, now 6.0. No DICE.
> > I've read the literature at
> > http://members.home.net/jasonbrossa/Linux/index.html and have currently
> > installed dhcpcd 0.70-2.
>
> for redhat 6.0 you need the newer dhcpcd that works with 2.[12].*
> kernels. dhcpcd-1.3.17.pl5 seems to be the latest version. there's
> one (although i think it's version .pl3) on your redhat disk. use
> that.
>
> you'll need to hack /sbin/ifup and /sbin/ifdown to use dhcpcd instead
> of pump. (pump is a loser because it cannot run a script when your ip
> changes.)
>
> > I have a 3com 509 (3c509) PCI network card
> > installed and recognized. RH 6.0 installed on a Pentium II 266, 256 meg
> > RAM. I got my voodoo banshee up and running, I even got my sound card to
> > work finally, I just can't seem to get my cable modem access configured.
> > There was some talk about a dhcpcd 1.3 somewhere, is that the trick? I
> > would SO appreciate any pointers as to what i'm doing wrong, or what i'm
> > forgetting. Thanks.
>
> i think @home has some special auth type stuff you need to do. i am
> using mediaone and it works fine.
>
> have you looked at the cablemodem mini-howto?
> <URL:http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/Cable-Modem.html>
> section 3.2 deals with @home.
The best way to deal with @Home is to bypass dhcp altogether. @home
asignes you a static ip so you can configure it as a simple network
connection.
kill all you network setup and try this script
=================================================
#! /bin/sh
#temp network init
/sbin/insmod 3c59x
/sbin/ifconfig eth0 24.x.x.x broadcast 24.x.x.255 netmask 255.255.255.0
/sbin/route add -net 24.x.x.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
/sbin/route add default gw 24.x.x.1
#just change x to your ip or part of your ip
#there is a redundant line for kernels 2.2.x but it does not hurt anything
#and the same script will work with 2.0.x kernels as well
=================================================
Joe.
------------------------------
From: Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dual processor setup?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 03:34:02 GMT
if you run lots of stuff in background processes, then you benefit from smp.
if you're mostly a single-job-at-a-time person, then you'll see less benefit.
William Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hi,
: Those of you who runs a dual processor setup with Linux, do you notice
: any
: performance gain? I'm interested in finding out about how good the 2.2
: kernel
: supports SMP. If there is noticeable performance gain, what type of
: applications
: do you run to see that?
: Any comments or opinions are welcome.
: Thanks.
: Bill
--
Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.
------------------------------
From: "Richard S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATI All-in-Wonder 128
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:09:11 -0500
After dual booting Windows 98 and Linux-Mandrake 5.3 distribution, I =
purchased the ATI All-in-Wonder 128 card to do some video capturing. The =
good news is that it performs as promised under Windows, the bad news is =
I have apparently sacrificed Linux as there is no XServer available from =
XFree86. Does anyone know of any software, open source or commercial =
which will get my GUI back up and running.=20
--=20
E-Mail is Anti-Spam Enabled
Do not use your "Reply" Button
Click: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20
------------------------------
From: Kevin J Tinkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Error opening /dev/audio
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 22:26:19 -0600
G'day,
I've read some mans, searched some newsgroups, read some books and used
"sndconfig" till I'm blue in the face. But my SB AWE32 will not make a
sound. "sndconfig" recognizes the card and all, but I get an error
which says "error opening /dev/audio", or very similar. No sound. I
have go the printer working, video resolution resolved, network up and
running - but the sound card thing is driving me down! I have installed
RedHat 5.2 on a P200 with 64MB RAM etc. All should be well. I'm sure
someone has run across this before.
Help please - what doth I do? BTW, someone mentioned "make xconfig". I
have installed the "make" files, but cannot find "xconfig" anywhere.
Only "Xconfigurator" and that is for the video setup. If you are kind
enough to be able to help, please type slowly - this is a brave new
world for me :^)
Kevin
------------------------------
From: Peter Teuben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modem mystery
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 00:39:43 -0400
Kenneth Been wrote:
>
> I just bought a Viking 56K external modem. I tried it with a friend's
> computer, with win95, and it worked ok. On my Linux box, it is very
> slow to even respond to commands, like the connect command or various AT
> commands that I try sending it from kermit.
>
> For example, I try this command (from the Serial-HOWTO):
>
> ATE1Q0V1
>
> and it takes probably 15 seconds or more just to echo the command back
> to the terminal. When I dial out, it does dial (after some delay), but
> then it fails somehow in making the connection, sometimes because of a
> timeout, and sometimes other reasons.
>
> None of these problems happen with my old 14.4 internal modem, which
> leads me to believe it is not a problem with Linux.
>
> But if it is not a Linux problem, and the modem works ok on windows,
> could it be a problem with the serial port on this computer? (I've
> never used it before.) Is there any way to test the port?
>
> Or do I need to configure the modem somehow with one of the AT
> commands? Maybe when we loaded the driver under win95, it did some
> configuration that I'm not getting on Linux?
sounds like an IRQ conflict to me. If it was a winmodem, you would
not see anything. I had this problem too long time ago, but I can't
remember the solution :-(
- peter
------------------------------
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adaptec 2920 SCSI controller
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:01:16 GMT
aic7xxx.o should work with 2920.
During setup you can select 2940
Joe.
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Phil Richardson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Just installed Red Hat 5.2. During the installation process the list of
> SCSI controllers supported did not include the Adaptec 2920 (other
> Adaptec cards were on the list, but not the 2920).
>
> Has anybody got RH5.2 to recognise this kind of SCSI card ? I've got a
> pair of seagate 4GB drives I'd DEARLY like to use.
>
> Persumably I have to get the kernel module to support this adaptor from
> somewhere ?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Phil Richardson
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:13:59 GMT
In article <7lrrtr$hgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>>& you have a ver poor ability of looking up benchmark results.
>
>
>Where are your benchmark results by the way?
not MY benchmark results. Where are YOURS? Couldn't find any eh? That
poor look up ability of yours I suppose...
>You have not yet answered my other question on your ratios of K6 vs. PII
>FPUs.
benchmarks, hardware & programming sites. That & I own a dog of a cpu(k6-2
300. old core: .55 p2 fpu). On a personal note, if the performance were so
ubar compared to p2's, as you keep on insisting, my frame rate wouldn't drop
to 16-9fps in warbirds when things get even slightly heavy. I must be
dreaming eh?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:14:55 -0400
From: Kenneth Been <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: modem mystery
I just bought a Viking 56K external modem. I tried it with a friend's
computer, with win95, and it worked ok. On my Linux box, it is very
slow to even respond to commands, like the connect command or various AT
commands that I try sending it from kermit.
For example, I try this command (from the Serial-HOWTO):
ATE1Q0V1
and it takes probably 15 seconds or more just to echo the command back
to the terminal. When I dial out, it does dial (after some delay), but
then it fails somehow in making the connection, sometimes because of a
timeout, and sometimes other reasons.
None of these problems happen with my old 14.4 internal modem, which
leads me to believe it is not a problem with Linux.
But if it is not a Linux problem, and the modem works ok on windows,
could it be a problem with the serial port on this computer? (I've
never used it before.) Is there any way to test the port?
Or do I need to configure the modem somehow with one of the AT
commands? Maybe when we loaded the driver under win95, it did some
configuration that I'm not getting on Linux?
Thanks in advance...
Ken
------------------------------
From: "Andrew J. Norman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dual processor setup?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:53:55 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
First off I'm actually still stuck back in the stone-age with the 2.0.37
SMP kernel....so 2.2.x should be more efficient etc....(in my case there
are legacy reason to stick with 2.0.x owing to some analysis code that is
not glibc2.1 friendly)
In general I can squeeze almost a full factor of 2 out of my own code (in
reality about 1.88-1.98, and I'm not joking) Some caveats on that
statement: I fully thread my code using standard pthread calls. I run
primiarly simulations (high energy particle physics sims) and I have
rewritten parts of the our libs to take advantage of the multi-processor
systems.
For standard applications (meaning everyday use and things I haven't
rewritten) the big advantage is the ability to run more than one
computationally intensive task at a time (say a small simulation, and
analysis job that does a lot of i/o) without noticeable slow down (e.g. my
emacs sessions respond normally)
In addition most Xwindows programs will see a speed up owing to the way
that most programs spawn new windows (normally they are either threaded or
forked and due to the design of the SMP kernel they will normally split
across processors to even the load)
For the record though my workstation not a bare bones system. The
basic specs follow:
Motherboard: Epox KP6-BS (dual slot 1)
CPUs: dual celeron @464 (ppga on MSI slockets)
Memory: 384Mb sdram dimms
I/O Controller: Adaptec 2940UW
Disks: 3x Seagate 4.3gig "hawk" series (wide scsi)
The key point is the amount of memory. Under 128Mb I was having problems
and noticing swapping, at 256 things were much better, at and above 384
things run smoothly regardless of the app.
Also of note is the disk array. There are three (3) wide scsi drives on
the machine. The point of doing this was so that there really would be
non-blocking i/o (meaning I thread off my i/o calls, and since scsi can
detach it does so and things run smoothly)
Basically the jist of all this is, that two really is better than one
especially on a multi user system, and for applications which are threaded
or which fork, you will notice an immediate factor of almost 2 in the
execution time (assuming that the programmer put the code together well).
My recommendation is that for serious programs a dual platform is a must.
And given the price difference (which is finally negligible) there is not
excuse to do otherwise.
Andrew J. Norman
______________________________________________________________
Dept. of Physics Phone: 757-221-3571
College of William & Mary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye" -The Little Prince
______________________________________________________________
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, William Zhao wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Those of you who runs a dual processor setup with Linux, do you notice
> any
> performance gain? I'm interested in finding out about how good the 2.2
> kernel
> supports SMP. If there is noticeable performance gain, what type of
> applications
> do you run to see that?
>
>
> Any comments or opinions are welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN4GL4yRqxyk0Hh01AQGKDgP/e29hKSS2a5RRuw9bIkcBr4TqyT7otKRH
NLY7CYtWiCJnjEolP6CZRkroirgcWZ9KzQtUsFhq5bsoBAW1BFKKIx1PrlHIURUi
f6huLI9ySPPb/3Atp3XxFcNEiND5HFq0iZixmXq4NGJJqHyTImsOoSP9SkbJ0rzU
Ny91xI1z1Rw=
=OUC+
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Roberts)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Yamaha MU10XG Midi Support?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:58:07 GMT
I run RedHat6.0/Mandrake on my Dell Inspiron 7000. Since this box doesn't
have a MIDI port, I bought a Yamaha MU10XG external MIDI box and sound
generator, which connects to the serial port. I'm quite pleased with the
box overall, but it's designed as a Windows beast. Because MIDI and RS232
are so much alike, it seems to me that it should be relatively easy to
support the MU10XG on Linux.
First, has anybody already done this? There seems to be no mention on
Yamaha's web site. Second, does anyone know enough about Linux MIDI
drivers to estimate how difficult this might be?
--
- Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
