Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2024-04-17, Dale wrote: > >> I still use Nvidia and use nvidia drivers. I to run into problems >> on occasion with drivers and kernels. When you switched from >> Nvidia, what did you switch too? Do you still use drivers you >> install or kernel drivers? > All in-tree kernel drivers for integrated GPUs: > > * Intel UHD Graphics 620 > * Intel HD Graphics 4000 > * Intel Xeon E3-1200 > * AMD Picasso Radeon Vega > > After I had to recycle my second perfectly functional NVidia card > simply because NVidia stopped driver support, I got fed up. I tried > the open-source nvidia drivers for those cards, but could never get > multiple screens to work. > >> How well does the video system work? In other words, plenty fast >> enough for what you do. > They're all fast enough for what I do (no heavy gaming, but I do play > with an RC flight simulator). All will drive at least two digital > monitors. The last machine that had an NVidia card removed is also > the oldest of the machines (Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H Intel i5-3570K w/ HD > 4000 graphics), and it's happily driving three monitors (1 HDMI, 1 > DVI, 1 DP). > > When running the flight-sim, the newest of them (the AMD/Radeon) is > noticeably smoother and runs at higher frame rates than the older Intel > GPUs. I didn't really have any complaints about the older ones, but I > don't expect a real gamer would have been satisfied with the Intel > ones. > >> I don't do any sort of heavy gaming. Since I have a nice game on my >> cell phone now, I play it almost all the time. I can't recall >> playing a game of solitaire on my computer in a long while. My >> biggest thing, two video ports, one for monitor and one for TV. >> Most TV videos aren't very high def but some are 1080P. That's all >> my TV can handle. > They all seem to handle HD video playback just fine. > > How many and what type of monitors can be driven is very much > dependent on the motherboard. > > -- > Grant > > > I've often thought of trying ATI or something but just never did. My video cards tend to age out too because of driver issues. From a cost perspective, I kinda get it. Still, I hate pitching a otherwise working card. Thanks for the info. More stuff to think on. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: >>> Rich Freeman wrote: >>> All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. >>> OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have >>> to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I >>> know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard >>> video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't >>> used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. >> To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and >> a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an >> external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that >> internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system >> use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those >> can also make use of internal RAM too). > You can usually set the amount of graphics memory in the BIOS, depending on > your need and RAM budget. > >> The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs >> had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of >> consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right >> now. > Yup. > G-series: big graphics for games n stuff, over 3 GFlops > F-Series: no graphics at all > rest: small graphics (around 0.8 GFlops max), ample for desktops and media > > X-Series: high performance > non-X: same as X, but with lower frequencies > > The X series are boosted to higher frequencies which give you a bit more > performance, but at the cost of disproportionally increased power > consumption and thus heat. They are simply run above the sweet spot in order > to get the longest bargraph in benchmarks. You can “simulate” a non-X by > running an X at a lower power target which can be set in the BIOS. In fact > once I have a Ryzen, I thing I might limit its frequency to a bit below > maximum just to avoid this inefficient region. > > But I’ll be buying a G anyways. Its architecture is different, as it is > basically a mobile chip in a desktop package. > > As to the qestion about 5/7/9 in the other mail: it’s just a tier number. > The more interesting is the 4-digit number. 600s and below are 6-core chips, > 700 and 800 have 8 cores, 900s have 12 cores or more. > > The thousands give away the generation. AM5 is denoted by 7xxx. (Though > there is another numbering scheme that does it quite differently, like > 7845H.) Good info. Clears up a little muddy water. >> In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you >> if it supports integrated graphics. > I also recommend Wikipedia. It has tables of all kinds of stuff. Including > all processors and their core features. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors > >> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. >> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty >> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - >> which is as good as you can get right now). > Not to mention a cut in power draw. > >>> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 >>> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to >>> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is >>> getting slower. > Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow > even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have > such problems. > Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780 > Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300 > > You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e. > proprietary ←→ foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects > with Shift+Alt+F12? > I do have Nvidia and I use the Nvidia drivers. Thought about using the ones in the kernel but just never did. I don't think it is the video card tho. I think some of it is all the hard drives I have installed and that they are busy. I run torrent software all the time. It stays very busy. I actually set the connection speed to a little lower so that I have some network speed that isn't being used so that when I do something, I get some network bandwidth. Plus, there's that growing software problem that always exists. Software rarely shrinks. >> That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a >> modern system will definitely help. > Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very > smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). > Generally, I use about 20 to 25GBs of RAM. Mostly, Seamonkey,
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs >>> do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't >>> do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. >>> >> OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have >> to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I >> know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard >> video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't >> used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. > To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and > a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an > external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that > internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system > use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those > can also make use of internal RAM too). > > The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs > had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of > consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right > now. > > In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you > if it supports integrated graphics. Most better stores/etc have > filters for this feature as well (places like Newegg or PCPartPicker > or whatever). > > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty > 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - > which is as good as you can get right now). > Sounds good. So right now, if I buy a mobo with a couple video ports, any current CPU will make the integrated video work. There is some CPUs in the works that don't so double check first, just to be sure. ;-) >> I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 >> or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to >> another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is >> getting slower. Actually, the software is just getting bigger. You get >> my meaning tho. I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to >> the rig I ran it on originally. > That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a > modern system will definitely help. When I first built this rig, it was very quick to respond to anything I did. Some could be all the hard drives I have installed here, 10 I think right now, but I think it just takes longer for the software to do its thing because all that software has gotten larger over the years. The same thing happened to my old original rig, AMD 2500+ single core with I think a few gigabytes of ram. The software just outgrew the ability of the hardware to keep up. I'm thinking of moving my torrent software to the NAS box. That thing takes a good bit of bandwidth itself. It keeps the drives and network busy. That can't help any. >> I'd get 32GBs at first. Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB. >> That'll get me 64Gbs. Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or >> a 64GB set and max it out. > You definitely want to match the timings, and you probably want to > match the sticks themselves. Also, you generally need to be mindful > of how many channels you're occupying, though as I understand it DDR5 > is essentially natively dual channel. If you just stick one DDR4 > stick in a system it will not perform as well as two sticks of half > the size. I forget the gory details but I believe it comes down to > the timings of switching between two different channels vs moving > around within a single one. DDR RAM timings get really confusing, and > it comes down to the fact that addresses are basically grouped in > various ways and randomly seeking from one address to another can take > a different amount of time depending on how the new address is related > to the address you last read. The idea of "seeking" with RAM may seem > odd, but recent memory technologies are a bit like storage, and they > are accessed in a semi-serial manner. Essentially the latencies and > transfer rates are such that even dynamic RAM chips are too slow to > work in the conventional sense. I'm guessing it gets into a lot of > gory details with reactances and so on, and just wiring up every > memory cell in parallel like in the old days would slow down all the > voltage transitions. I used a memory finder tool to find what fits that ASUS mobo. It takes 32GB sticks IN PAIRS. Also, according to one manufacturer, they come in matched sets. A 64GB set costs almost $200. Still, I can make it on 64GB for a while. Add another set later. I got the impression that installing only one stick might not work to well. >> I've looked at server type boards. I'd like to have one.
[gentoo-user] Re: NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On 2024-04-17, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: >> If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. >> Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty >> 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - >> which is as good as you can get right now). > > Not to mention a cut in power draw. And one fewer fan to listen to. [I was also pretty annoyed with NVidia when they stopped offering fanless Quadro boards. I'm a big fan of fanless]
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On 2024-04-17, Dale wrote: > I still use Nvidia and use nvidia drivers. I to run into problems > on occasion with drivers and kernels. When you switched from > Nvidia, what did you switch too? Do you still use drivers you > install or kernel drivers? All in-tree kernel drivers for integrated GPUs: * Intel UHD Graphics 620 * Intel HD Graphics 4000 * Intel Xeon E3-1200 * AMD Picasso Radeon Vega After I had to recycle my second perfectly functional NVidia card simply because NVidia stopped driver support, I got fed up. I tried the open-source nvidia drivers for those cards, but could never get multiple screens to work. > How well does the video system work? In other words, plenty fast > enough for what you do. They're all fast enough for what I do (no heavy gaming, but I do play with an RC flight simulator). All will drive at least two digital monitors. The last machine that had an NVidia card removed is also the oldest of the machines (Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H Intel i5-3570K w/ HD 4000 graphics), and it's happily driving three monitors (1 HDMI, 1 DVI, 1 DP). When running the flight-sim, the newest of them (the AMD/Radeon) is noticeably smoother and runs at higher frame rates than the older Intel GPUs. I didn't really have any complaints about the older ones, but I don't expect a real gamer would have been satisfied with the Intel ones. > I don't do any sort of heavy gaming. Since I have a nice game on my > cell phone now, I play it almost all the time. I can't recall > playing a game of solitaire on my computer in a long while. My > biggest thing, two video ports, one for monitor and one for TV. > Most TV videos aren't very high def but some are 1080P. That's all > my TV can handle. They all seem to handle HD video playback just fine. How many and what type of monitors can be driven is very much dependent on the motherboard. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Meik Frischke wrote: > Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale: >> I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It >> claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those >> bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to >> test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more >> about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this >> would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has >> seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. >> > > Hi Dale, > > since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant > performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the > smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at > 14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink > (32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can > deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve > similar performance levels with lower power consumption. > Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile > benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower > non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted > results) while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4 > submissions) [1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well > with core count and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance > difference is in most cases similar for different packages. There are > many influencing factors for benchmarking like running kernel version, > activated options and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it > yourself: there are ebuilds for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in > various overlays [2]. You can perform the benchmark with > $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with > the "defconfig" test configuration option. > > Cheers, > Meik > > [1] > https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics > [2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite > > If one just compares the kernel compile time, about 4 times faster. I'm not expecting the accuracy one needs to build a space ship. ;-) That's a pretty good way to measure because with Gentoo, compiling a kernel is a very common thing. As you said, it scales well. Compiling gcc would be a good one to if they have default USE flags. Obviously if one system has a lot of USE flags enabled and another is the bare minimum, there will be a difference not related to CPU speed. Rich made a good point too. Speed isn't just influenced by the CPU. Memory speed and even the speed of accessing data drive, spinning rust, SSD or whatever, also affects a system. When I get this new rig built and you see me post about it, remind me and I'll install that benchmark test and send in the results. I like doing things like that because it helps others too. I just wish there was a centralized place for them all. Right now, there are likely dozens of them and each with their own method. Thanks for that info. I'm making progress and planning a way to purchase all this. It's still not cheap but cheaper than it was before I found out I could get a cheaper CPU and upgrade later. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:18:39PM -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > > > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > > > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > > > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > > > > > > > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have > > to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I > > know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard > > video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't > > used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. > > To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and > a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an > external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that > internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system > use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those > can also make use of internal RAM too). You can usually set the amount of graphics memory in the BIOS, depending on your need and RAM budget. > The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs > had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of > consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right > now. Yup. G-series: big graphics for games n stuff, over 3 GFlops F-Series: no graphics at all rest: small graphics (around 0.8 GFlops max), ample for desktops and media X-Series: high performance non-X: same as X, but with lower frequencies The X series are boosted to higher frequencies which give you a bit more performance, but at the cost of disproportionally increased power consumption and thus heat. They are simply run above the sweet spot in order to get the longest bargraph in benchmarks. You can “simulate” a non-X by running an X at a lower power target which can be set in the BIOS. In fact once I have a Ryzen, I thing I might limit its frequency to a bit below maximum just to avoid this inefficient region. But I’ll be buying a G anyways. Its architecture is different, as it is basically a mobile chip in a desktop package. As to the qestion about 5/7/9 in the other mail: it’s just a tier number. The more interesting is the 4-digit number. 600s and below are 6-core chips, 700 and 800 have 8 cores, 900s have 12 cores or more. The thousands give away the generation. AM5 is denoted by 7xxx. (Though there is another numbering scheme that does it quite differently, like 7845H.) > In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you > if it supports integrated graphics. I also recommend Wikipedia. It has tables of all kinds of stuff. Including all processors and their core features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors > If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. > Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty > 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - > which is as good as you can get right now). Not to mention a cut in power draw. > > I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 > > or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to > > another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is > > getting slower. Wut. I am running plasma 6 on a Surface Go 1 whose Pentium Gold was slow even when it came out. It is half as fast as your 8350 and does not have such problems. Benchmark FX 8350: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=1780 Benchmark Pentium Gold: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?id=3300 You have NVidia, right? Did you try the other graphics driver (i.e. proprietary ←→ foss)? Do those delays disappear if you disable 3D effects with Shift+Alt+F12? > That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a > modern system will definitely help. Well, is the RAM full? My 10 years old PC has 32 Gigs and still runs very smooth (with Intel integrated graphics). > > Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks. > > Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like > an odd size. Actually, my product search page finds sticks with up to 96 GB. I believe the 48 size was introduced because for those to whom 32 was too small, 64 was too expensive. DDR5 still is relatively pricey due to its higher electrical requirements. -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. It’s quiet in the shadow, because you can’t hear the light. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
Grant Edwards wrote: > > 2) Lack of support for old hardware when running a newer kernels. > > I used to run into this when running nvidia-drivers. > Gentoo-sources would mark a new kernel stable, but my video board > would not be supported by nvidia-drivers versions that were > supported for that new stable kernel. I would mask newer kernels > until and run older "longterm" kernels as long as I could. I would > evenually be forced to buy a new video card. After going through > that cycle a couple times, I swore off NVidia video cards and > life's been much eaiser since. > I still use Nvidia and use nvidia drivers. I to run into problems on occasion with drivers and kernels. When you switched from Nvidia, what did you switch too? Do you still use drivers you install or kernel drivers? How well does the video system work? In other words, plenty fast enough for what you do. I don't do any sort of heavy gaming. Since I have a nice game on my cell phone now, I play it almost all the time. I can't recall playing a game of solitaire on my computer in a long while. My biggest thing, two video ports, one for monitor and one for TV. Most TV videos aren't very high def but some are 1080P. That's all my TV can handle. Just exploring options. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On 2024-04-17, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote: > Grant, > > On Wednesday, 2024-04-17 14:11:21 -, you wrote: > >> ... >> If what you want is access to all upstream longeterm kernel versions, >> then you should be using sys-kernel/vanilla-sources. > > I was not aware of this package. Excatly what could come in handy, if > everything else fails. Thank you for that pointer :-) Just be aware that gentoo-sources contains an "extra" set of gentoo-specific patches. So version x.y.z of gentoo-sources isn't identical to version x.y.z of vanilla-sources. https://dev.gentoo.org/~mpagano/genpatches/ -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On 17/04/2024 10:10, Michael wrote: I am not sure the assumption "... aging hardware possibly can less and less cope with newer and newer kernels" is correct. As already mentioned newer kernels have both security and bug fixes. As long as you stick with stable gentoo-sources you'll have these in your system. Later kernels also come with additional kernel drivers for new(er) hardware. You may not need/want these drivers if you do not run the latest hardware. Using 'make oldconfig' allows you to exclude such new drivers, but include new security options and/or functionality as desired. Given that I remember the announcement that the linux kernel's memory requirements had increased to 6MB - in the days when Fedora et al demanded gigabytes simply to be able to run - I think almost any ancient hardware you can actually buy will be able to run the linux kernel no probs. You might have difficulty compiling it, though, now 386 support has been pretty much dropped from the toolchain. Have they dropped i686 as well? Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Am 2024-04-17 12:33, schrieb Dale: I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. Hi Dale, since Moore's Law isn't quite dead yet there is a significant performance uplift in newer processor generations, especially with the smaller 5nm process nodes of recent, after some years of stagnation at 14nm (your FX-8350 was manufactured at 32nm). With each process shrink (32nm -> 28nm -> 22 nm -> 14nm -> 10nm -> 7nm -> 5nm) new CPUs can deliver higher performance with the same power consumption or achieve similar performance levels with lower power consumption. Looking at the open-benchmarking default configuration kernel compile benchmark (pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0), the Ryzen 5 7600 (slower non-X) took ~101s to compile the kernel (based on 28 submitted results) while the FX-8350 took ~422s for the same task (based on 4 submissions) [1]. Unlike gaming, compiling tends to scale quite well with core count and for the gentoo use-case the measured performance difference is in most cases similar for different packages. There are many influencing factors for benchmarking like running kernel version, activated options and mitigations so YMMV, but you can test it yourself: there are ebuilds for the phoronix-benchmark-suite in various overlays [2]. You can perform the benchmark with $(phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/build-linux-kernel-1.15.0) with the "defconfig" test configuration option. Cheers, Meik [1] https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/build-linux-kernel=9cdcd82c9c47af9df17263e4312f634338dbf476#metrics [2] https://gpo.zugaina.org/app-benchmarks/phoronix-test-suite
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:33 AM Dale wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > > > > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have > to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I > know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard > video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't > used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. To use onboard graphics, you need a motherboard that supports it, and a CPU that supports it. I believe that internal graphics and an external GPU card can both be used at the same time. Note that internal graphics solutions typically steal some RAM from other system use, while an external GPU will have its own dedicated RAM (and those can also make use of internal RAM too). The 7600X has a built-in RDNA2 GPU. All the original Ryzen zen4 CPUs had GPU support, but it looks like they JUST announced a new line of consumer zen4 CPUs that don't have it - they all end in an F right now. In any case, if you google the CPU you're looking at it will tell you if it supports integrated graphics. Most better stores/etc have filters for this feature as well (places like Newegg or PCPartPicker or whatever). If you don't play games, then definitely get integrated graphics. Even if the CPU costs a tiny bit more, it will give you a free empty 16x PCIe slot at whatever speed the CPU supports (v5 in this case - which is as good as you can get right now). > That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then. > One can hope. Right??? Everything comes down in price eventually... > > I might add, simply right clicking on the desktop can take sometimes 20 > or 30 seconds for the menu to pop up. Switching from one desktop to > another can take several seconds, sometimes 8 or 10. This rig is > getting slower. Actually, the software is just getting bigger. You get > my meaning tho. I bet the old KDE3 would be blazingly fast compared to > the rig I ran it on originally. That sounds like RAM but I couldn't say for sure. In any case a modern system will definitely help. > Given the new rig can have 128GBs, I assume it comes in 32GB sticks. Consumer DDR5 seems to come as large as 48GB, though that seems like an odd size. > I'd get 32GBs at first. Maybe a month or so later get another 32GB. > That'll get me 64Gbs. Later on, a good sale maybe, buy another 32GB or > a 64GB set and max it out. You definitely want to match the timings, and you probably want to match the sticks themselves. Also, you generally need to be mindful of how many channels you're occupying, though as I understand it DDR5 is essentially natively dual channel. If you just stick one DDR4 stick in a system it will not perform as well as two sticks of half the size. I forget the gory details but I believe it comes down to the timings of switching between two different channels vs moving around within a single one. DDR RAM timings get really confusing, and it comes down to the fact that addresses are basically grouped in various ways and randomly seeking from one address to another can take a different amount of time depending on how the new address is related to the address you last read. The idea of "seeking" with RAM may seem odd, but recent memory technologies are a bit like storage, and they are accessed in a semi-serial manner. Essentially the latencies and transfer rates are such that even dynamic RAM chips are too slow to work in the conventional sense. I'm guessing it gets into a lot of gory details with reactances and so on, and just wiring up every memory cell in parallel like in the old days would slow down all the voltage transitions. > I've looked at server type boards. I'd like to have one. I'd like one > that has SAS ports. So, I don't really spend much time looking at them, but I'm guessing SAS is fairly rare on the motherboards themselves. They probably almost always have an HBA/RAID controller in a PCIe slot. You can put the same cards in any PC, but of course you're just going to struggle to have a slot free. You can always use a riser or something to cram an HBA into a slot that is too small for it, but then you're going to suffer reduced performance. For just a few spinning disks though it probably won't matter. Really though I feel like the trend is towards NVMe and that gets into a whole different world. U.2 allows either SAS or PCIe over the bus, and there are HBAs that will handle both. Or if you only want NVMe it looks like you can use bifurcation-based solutions to more cheaply break slots out. I'm kinda thinking about going that direction when I expand my Ceph cluster. There are very nice NVMe server designs that can get 24 drives into 2U or
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
Grant, On Wednesday, 2024-04-17 14:11:21 -, you wrote: > ... > If what you want is access to all upstream longeterm kernel versions, > then you should be using sys-kernel/vanilla-sources. I was not aware of this package. Excatly what could come in handy, if everything else fails. Thank you for that pointer :-) Sincerely, Rainer
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
Michael, On Wednesday, 2024-04-17 10:10:56 +0100, you wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 April 2024 20:26:25 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > > On 2024-04-16, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote: > > ... > > > But, to get back to the beginning of this discussion: if there is a > > > risk that my aging hardware possibly can less and less cope with > > > newer and newer kernels, should I put something like > > > > > >>=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-6.7.0 > > > > > > into file "package.mask" to stay with "longterm" 6.6.* kernels? > > ... > > I am not sure the assumption "... aging hardware possibly can less and less > cope with newer and newer kernels" is correct. As already mentioned newer > kernels have both security and bug fixes. As long as you stick with stable > gentoo-sources you'll have these in your system. But since the 6.6.* kernel is LTS, security and bug fixes will be back- ported into it and all is well. And if this can't be done for some rea- son or other, I can still cautiously advance my entry in file "package. mask" to the next LTS kernel. > ... > PS. Regarding your earlier question about different make *config commands and > their meaning you can check the latest make help page: > > $ cd /usr/src/linux > $ make help Done. Again learned something. Thanks a lot :-) Sincerely, Rainer
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On 2024-04-17, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote: > Grant, > > On Tuesday, 2024-04-16 19:26:25 -, you wrote: > >> ... >> That means that all gentoo-sources stable kernels are "longterm" >> kernel versions on kernel.org. It does not mean that all "longterm" >> kernel versions from kernel.org are available as "stable" in >> gentoo-sources. >> >> It is a statement that "gentoo-sources stable" is a subset of >> "kernel.org longterm". > > This sort of deteriorates into a debate about words rather than meanings I'm sorry to have caused "deterioration" by trying to explain the statement you said a) you didn't understand and b) was contridicted by the contents of the gentoo portage tree. The statement was not contridicted by what you pointed out. > without explaining HOW LONG such a series of related kernels are > main- tained and provided. That was not the subject of the statement you claimed was wrong which I then tried to explain. The gentoo-sources versions of upstream "longterm" kernels are maintained and provided for as long as the volunteers who do the work maintain and provide them. > After all, "longterm" or "LTS" suggest that these lines of > developement are less short-lived than others. They are. Upstream longterm kernel versions get updates for several years longer than versions that are not longterm. > To give an ex- ample: the oldest "longterm" kernels listed on > "kernel.org" are 4.19.*, 5.4.* and 5.10.*. Of these only 5.10.* is > still available from Gentoo. You should certainly demand that all of the money you paid for gentoo-sources be refunded. It takes work to maintain gentoo-sources ebuilds. I'm sure if you volunteered to maintain ebuilds for the older longterm kernels, the help would be happily accepted. Free clue: It's _hard_work_ to support old verions of things (especially kernels). They usually won't build with recent tools and won't run on recent hardware or with recent versions of other software. You often have to keep around entire virtual machines that have old tools and utilities. If what you want is access to all upstream longeterm kernel versions, then you should be using sys-kernel/vanilla-sources. > So what time span are we talking about when we say "LTS Gentoo > kernel"? We don't say that. "LTS" and "longterm" are not Gentoo designations, they are kernel.org designations. Gentoo has "stable" and "testing". Only upstream "longterm" kernel versions get marked as "stable" in gentoo-sources. They are then supported for as long as somebody supports them. > Roughly four, three or two years? And why is the support provided > by Gentoo significantly shorter than that by "kernel.org"? Because you're not helping with the support? -- Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On 2024-04-17, Michael wrote: >> > But, to get back to the beginning of this discussion: if there is a >> > risk that my aging hardware possibly can less and less cope with >> > newer and newer kernels, should I put something like >> > >> >>=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-6.7.0 >> > >> > into file "package.mask" to stay with "longterm" 6.6.* kernels? >> >> Yes: if you want to avoid getting upgraded to 6.8 when it gets >> kernel.org "longterm" status and gentoo-sources "stable" status, then >> a statement like that in in package.mask will keep you on >> gentoo-sources 6.6 kernels (which are "longterm" on kernel.org). > I am not sure the assumption "... aging hardware possibly can less and less > cope with newer and newer kernels" is correct. Good point. My "yes" was in response to a question of the form "if X is true, should I do Y". I did not attempt to address the likelyhood that X was actually ture, only whether Y was appropriate if X was true. > As already mentioned newer kernels have both security and bug fixes. > As long as you stick with stable gentoo-sources you'll have these in > your system. Later kernels also come with additional kernel drivers > for new(er) hardware. You may not need/want these drivers if you do > not run the latest hardware. Using 'make oldconfig' allows you to > exclude such new drivers, but include new security options and/or > functionality as desired. > > It can happen for new code to introduce some software regression. The usual worries with running newer kernels on older hardware are: 1) Performance degradation when upgrading kernels on older hardware. On one embedded project I work with we're still running a 2.6 kernel because network throughput drops by 25-30% when we upgrade to 3.x kernels. There's nothing "wrong" with those 3.x kernels, they're just bigger and significantly slower. [Even when built with a config that's as identical to the 2.6 kernels as possible.] 2) Lack of support for old hardware when running a newer kernels. I used to run into this when running nvidia-drivers. Gentoo-sources would mark a new kernel stable, but my video board would not be supported by nvidia-drivers versions that were supported for that new stable kernel. I would mask newer kernels until and run older "longterm" kernels as long as I could. I would evenually be forced to buy a new video card. After going through that cycle a couple times, I swore off NVidia video cards and life's been much eaiser since.
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33 AM Dale wrote: >> On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had >> more PCIe slots tho. > AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the > motherboard. > > 0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their > motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the > cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a > switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into > another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that > form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and > USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later > generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.) > > Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3 > lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem > is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It > is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you > more lanes. > >> It supports not only the Ryzen 9 >> series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. > That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no > information at all besides the price point. > > The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X, > and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the > second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer. > > Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no > information beyond the general price level they were introduced at. > You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features > than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps > getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is > intentionally confusing. > >> I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X >> and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. > Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU > built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The > 7600X is zen4. > > See what I mean about the branding getting confusing? > Yep. I see that. It's easy enough to confuse me. Having something that is inherently confusing just makes it worse. I think some manufacturers do this sort of thing on purpose. Not just computer stuff either. >> I >> haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has >> video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. > All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs > do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't > do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > OK. I read that a few times. If I want to use the onboard video I have to have a certain CPU that supports it? Do those have something so I know which is which? Or do I read that as all the CPUs support onboard video but if one plugs in a video card, that part of the CPU isn't used? The last one makes more sense but asking to be sure. >> Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I >> could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking >> around the corner. > Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very > expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't > gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was > expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more > expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as > well). That could mean a slight price drop for the things I'm looking at then. One can hope. Right??? > > > I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be >> a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? > So, that very much depends on what you're doing. > > Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total > performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less > power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full > load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers > reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost. > > That's just pure CPU performance. > > The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the > DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think > the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so > each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters > a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an > NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it. > > Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these > factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage > is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at > all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 6:33 AM Dale wrote: > > On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had > more PCIe slots tho. AM5 has 28 PCIe lanes. Anything above that comes from a switch on the motherboard. 0.1% of the population cares about having anything on their motherboard besides a 16x slot for the GPU. So, that's what all the cheaper boards deliver these days. The higher end boards often have a switch and will deliver extra lanes, and MAYBE those will go into another PCIe slot (probably not wired for 16x but it might have that form factor), and more often those go into additional M.2 slots and USB3 ports. (USB3 is very high bandwidth, especially later generations, and eats up PCIe lanes as a result.) Keep in mind those 28 v5 lanes have the bandwidth of over 100 v3 lanes, which is part of why the counts are being reduced. The problem is that hardware to do that conversion is kinda niche right now. It is much easier to bifurcate a larger slot, but that doesn't buy you more lanes. > It supports not only the Ryzen 9 > series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. That is because the 9 and 5 are branding and basically convey no information at all besides the price point. The Ryzen 7 1700X has about half the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X, and that would be because the first chip came out in 2017, and the second came out in 2022 and is three generations newer. Likewise the intel branding of "i3" or "i7" and so on also conveys no information beyond the general price level they were introduced at. You can expect the bigger numbers to offer more performance/features than the smaller ones OF THE SAME GENERATION. The same branding keeps getting re-applied to later generations of chips, and IMO it is intentionally confusing. > I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X > and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. Both have onboard graphics. The G designates zen1-3 chips with a GPU built in, and all zen4 CPUs have this as a standard feature. The 7600X is zen4. See what I mean about the branding getting confusing? > I > haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has > video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. All AM5 CPUs have GPUs, but in general motherboards with video outputs do not require the CPU to have a GPU built in. The ports just don't do anything if this is lacking, and you would need a dedicated GPU. > Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I > could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking > around the corner. Zen5 is supposedly coming out later this year. It will be very expensive. Zen4 is still kinda expensive I believe though I haven't gone looking recently at prices. I have a zen4 system and it was expensive (particularly the motherboard, and the DDR5 is more expensive, and if you want NVMe that does v5 that is more expensive as well). > I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be > a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? So, that very much depends on what you're doing. Single-thread performance of that 7600X is 2-3x faster. Total performance is almost 5x faster. The 7600X will use moderately less power at full load, and I'm guessing WAY less power at less than full load. It will also have much better performance than those numbers reflect for very short bursts of work, since modern CPUs can boost. That's just pure CPU performance. The DDR5 performance of the recent CPU is MUCH better than that of the DDR3 you're using now. Your old motherboard might be PCIe v2 (I think the controller for that was on the motherboard back then?). If so each lane delivers 8x more bandwidth on the recent CPU, which matters a great deal for graphics, or for NVMe performance if you're using an NVMe that supports it and have a workload that benefits from it. Gaming tends to be a workload that benefits the most from all of these factors. If your system is just acting as a NAS and all the storage is on hard drives, I'm guessing you won't see much of a difference at all, except maybe in boot time, especially if you put the OS on an NVMe. If this is just for your NAS I would not drop all that money on zen4, let alone zen5. I'd look for something older, possibly used, that is way cheaper. > Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running > Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software. Ok, if this is for a desktop you'll benefit more from a newer CPU. RAM is really expensive though these days. Getting something off-lease is going to save you a fortune as the RAM is practically free in those. You can get something with 32GB of DDR4 for $150 or less in a SFF PC. > I'm not running > out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that > would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory. Any recent motherboard will handle 128GB. You'll just need to use large DIMMs as
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On Wednesday, 17 April 2024 11:37:04 BST Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
> Grant,
>
> On Tuesday, 2024-04-16 19:26:25 -, you wrote:
> > ...
> > That means that all gentoo-sources stable kernels are "longterm"
> > kernel versions on kernel.org. It does not mean that all "longterm"
> > kernel versions from kernel.org are available as "stable" in
> > gentoo-sources.
> >
> > It is a statement that "gentoo-sources stable" is a subset of
> > "kernel.org longterm".
>
> This sort of deteriorates into a debate about words rather than meanings
> without explaining HOW LONG such a series of related kernels are main-
> tained and provided. After all, "longterm" or "LTS" suggest that these
> lines of developement are less short-lived than others. To give an ex-
> ample: the oldest "longterm" kernels listed on "kernel.org" are 4.19.*,
> 5.4.* and 5.10.*. Of these only 5.10.* is still available from Gentoo.
>
> Digging through my Gentoo installation logs, I can see that 4.19.72 was
> one of the first kernels I built myself. This was somewhen in the mid-
> dle of 2019, that is, not yet five years back. And this kernel line has
> already vanished from Gentoo. So what time span are we talking about
> when we say "LTS Gentoo kernel"? Roughly four, three or two years? And
> why is the support provided by Gentoo significantly shorter than that by
> "kernel.org"?
>
> Sincerely,
> Rainer
LTS kernels were being supported for ~6 years, although the projected EOL I
see here indicates later LTS releases may not be supported for as long:
https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
The stable gentoo-sources are tree cleaned more frequently, so the oldest
stable release for amd64 in portage is now 5.10.212:
$ eix gentoo-sources
[I] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
Available versions:
(5.10.208) *5.10.208^bs
(5.10.212) 5.10.212^bs
(5.10.213) ~5.10.213^bs
(5.10.214) ~5.10.214^bs
(5.10.215) ~5.10.215^bs
(5.15.147) *5.15.147^bs
(5.15.151) 5.15.151^bs
(5.15.152) ~5.15.152^bs
(5.15.153) ~5.15.153^bs
(5.15.154) ~5.15.154^bs
(5.15.155) ~5.15.155^bs
(6.1.74) *6.1.74^bs
(6.1.81) 6.1.81^bs
(6.1.83) ~6.1.83^bs
(6.1.84) ~6.1.84^bs
(6.1.85) ~6.1.85^bs
(6.1.86) ~6.1.86^bs
(6.6.13) *6.6.13^bs
(6.6.21) 6.6.21^bs
(6.6.24) ~6.6.24^bs
(6.6.25) ~6.6.25^bs
(6.6.26) ~6.6.26^bs
(6.6.26-r1) ~6.6.26-r1^bs
(6.6.27) ~6.6.27^bs
(6.8.3) ~6.8.3^bs
(6.8.4) ~6.8.4^bs
(6.8.5) ~6.8.5^bs
(6.8.5-r1) ~6.8.5-r1^bs
(6.8.6) ~6.8.6^bs
{build experimental symlink}
Installed versions: 6.6.21(6.6.21)^bs(03:21:20 24/03/24)(-build -
experimental -symlink)
Homepage:https://dev.gentoo.org/~mpagano/genpatches
Description: Full sources including the Gentoo patchset for the
6.8 kernel tree
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Using the new binpkgs
On Tuesday, 16 April 2024 16:29:09 BST Eli Schwartz wrote: [Big snip] Never mind. I've solved the problem by removing sci-misc/boinc and its 40-odd dependencies. The machine was only barely capable of running it anyway. -- Regards, Peter.
[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
Grant, On Tuesday, 2024-04-16 19:26:25 -, you wrote: > ... > That means that all gentoo-sources stable kernels are "longterm" > kernel versions on kernel.org. It does not mean that all "longterm" > kernel versions from kernel.org are available as "stable" in > gentoo-sources. > > It is a statement that "gentoo-sources stable" is a subset of > "kernel.org longterm". This sort of deteriorates into a debate about words rather than meanings without explaining HOW LONG such a series of related kernels are main- tained and provided. After all, "longterm" or "LTS" suggest that these lines of developement are less short-lived than others. To give an ex- ample: the oldest "longterm" kernels listed on "kernel.org" are 4.19.*, 5.4.* and 5.10.*. Of these only 5.10.* is still available from Gentoo. Digging through my Gentoo installation logs, I can see that 4.19.72 was one of the first kernels I built myself. This was somewhen in the mid- dle of 2019, that is, not yet five years back. And this kernel line has already vanished from Gentoo. So what time span are we talking about when we say "LTS Gentoo kernel"? Roughly four, three or two years? And why is the support provided by Gentoo significantly shorter than that by "kernel.org"? Sincerely, Rainer
Re: [gentoo-user] NAS box and switching from Phenom II X6 1090T to FX-6300
Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > Am Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:04:15AM -0500 schrieb Dale: > > >> I've seen some server type mobos that have SAS connectors which gives >> several options. Some of them tend to have more PCIe slots which some >> regular mobos don't anymore. Then there is that ECC memory as well. If >> the memory doesn't cost to much more, I could go that route. I'm not >> sure how much I would benefit from it but data corruption is a thing to >> be concerned about. >> […] >> The problem with those cards, some of the newer mobos don't have as many >> PCIe slots to put those cards into anymore. I think I currently have >> two such cards in my current rig. The new rig would hold almost twice >> the number of drives. Obviously, I'd need cards with more SATA ports. > Indeed consumer boards tend to get fewer normal PCIe slots. Filtering for > AM4 boards, the filter allowed me to filter up to 6 slots, whereas for AM5 > boards, the filter stopped at 4 slots. > AM4: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam4=18869_5%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > AM5: https://skinflint.co.uk/?cat=mbam5=18869_4%7E20502_UECCDIMM%7E4400_ATX > > On the AM5 link, I found a mobo that I kinda like. I still wish it had more PCIe slots tho. Still, with m.2 to SATA converter thing or a PCIe card with a LOT of SATA ports or a SAS card, I could handle all the hard drives, I think. Anyway, I found the ASUS Prime X670-P which is quite nice. It has connections I've never heard of. Still, may need them for something. I found the ASUS website and started looking for the specs and such. After I got the noscript thing sorted so the page would work, I noticed something kinda awesome. It supports not only the Ryzen 9 series but also supports Ryzen 5 series. I looked up the Ryzen 5 7600X and 8600G. I think the X has no video and the G has video support. I haven't researched yet to see if the mobo requires the G since it has video ports, two to be more precise which is the minimum I need. Anyway, those two CPUs are cheaper than the Ryzen 9 I was looking at. I could upgrade later on as prices drop. I'm sure a new Ryzen is lurking around the corner. I have a FX-8350 8 core CPU now. Would the Ryzen 5's mentioned above be a good bit faster, a lot, a whole lot? I need to upgrade either way. Mobos tend to last around 10 years or so and I'm pushing that hard. With the new solid capacitors, some say they last a lot longer now. Still, I need more memory too. 32GBs just isn't much when running Seamonkey, three Firefox profiles and torrent software. I'm not running out but at times, it's using a lot of it. I was hoping for a mobo that would handle more than 128GB but that is a lot of memory. I found a benchmark website that compares the two. Link below. It claims about 80% faster. In some ways, twice as fast. Sometimes those bench tests don't reflect the real world to well. Most of them seem to test gaming speeds which isn't of much use anyway for me. I'm more about compiling and such. Just wondering how much speed difference this would make. Maybe someone reading this did a similar upgrade or has seen both in action. If so, post and share your thoughts. This opens a new option that might be easier to accomplish. Still wish that mobo had more PCIe slots tho. Dale :-) :-) https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-7600X-vs-AMD-FX-8350/4130vs1489 https://www.asus.com/us/motherboards-components/motherboards/prime/prime-x670-p/helpdesk_qvl_cpu?model2Name=PRIME-X670-P
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly corrupted file systems when resuming from hibernation
On Tuesday, 16 April 2024 20:26:25 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2024-04-16, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote: > > Arve, > > > > On Tuesday, 2024-04-16 15:53:48 +0200, you wrote: > >> ... > >> Only LTS kernels get stabilised, so this information is readily > >> available. > > > > I'm sure I don't understand this: According to "https://www.kernel.org/; > > kernel 6.6.27 is "longterm", but according to "eix" the most recent > > 6.6.* kernels are 6.6.22 and 6.6.23 which both are non-stable (well, I > > ran my last "sync" immediately before the profile upgrade, so this might > > not be current). I'm still using stable kernel 6.6.13 as my backup ker- > > nel, but this kernel is no longer provided by Gentoo. So, what precise- > > ly does LTS or "longterm" mean? LTS stands for Long Term Support and it means the kernel maintainers will continue to backport bug fixes and security patches into the LTS kernels from the Mainline tree, as they progress in their development of the kernel code. When they do this backporting they bump the LTS kernel version, e.g. from 6.6.24 to 6.6.25. They will not go into this prolonged maintenance effort with the kernel's 'Stable' tree, which has a higher churn as it acquires the Mainline kernels as soon as the latter are signed for release. > That means that all gentoo-sources stable kernels are "longterm" > kernel versions on kernel.org. It does not mean that all "longterm" > kernel versions from kernel.org are available as "stable" in > gentoo-sources. > > It is a statement that "gentoo-sources stable" is a subset of > "kernel.org longterm". > > It is not a statement that the two sets are identical. > > In other words: > >"ONLY LTS kernels get stabilized." > > is a different statement from > >"ALL LTS kernels get stabilized." > > The former is true. The latter is not. Yes, precisely. This happens because Gentoo acquire the latest LTS kernel, apply various Gentoo related patches, test and eventually mark as stable the corresponding version of the gentoo-sources in portage. This process incurs some inevitable delay compared with the LTS kernel tree releases, but nevertheless the stable gentoo-sources follow the LTS releases. > > But, to get back to the beginning of this discussion: if there is a > > risk that my aging hardware possibly can less and less cope with > > newer and newer kernels, should I put something like > > > >>=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-6.7.0 > > > > into file "package.mask" to stay with "longterm" 6.6.* kernels? > > Yes: if you want to avoid getting upgraded to 6.8 when it gets > kernel.org "longterm" status and gentoo-sources "stable" status, then > a statement like that in in package.mask will keep you on > gentoo-sources 6.6 kernels (which are "longterm" on kernel.org). > > Again: not all longterm 6.6.x kernel versions get marked as "stable" > for gentoo-sources. If you have not enabled the testing keyword for > gentoo-sources, then you'll only get the 6.6.x kernel versions that > the gentoo-sources maintainers have declared as "stable". > > -- > Grant I am not sure the assumption "... aging hardware possibly can less and less cope with newer and newer kernels" is correct. As already mentioned newer kernels have both security and bug fixes. As long as you stick with stable gentoo-sources you'll have these in your system. Later kernels also come with additional kernel drivers for new(er) hardware. You may not need/want these drivers if you do not run the latest hardware. Using 'make oldconfig' allows you to exclude such new drivers, but include new security options and/or functionality as desired. It can happen for new code to introduce some software regression. However, this is not limited to old hardware. If there is no workaround, or some patch you can apply manually to your kernel from a later release, then by all means you can mask later minor LTS releases *for a little while only* and keep an eye open for the latest releases which could have addressed the bug you suffered from. PS. Regarding your earlier question about different make *config commands and their meaning you can check the latest make help page: $ cd /usr/src/linux $ make help Then take a look at the section "Configuration targets". signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
