December 2003 - openSUSE AMD64 - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Re: [suse-amd64] HDAMB 240s and 2.6.0
by Benjamin Hamilton 19 Dec '03

19 Dec '03

I used a common windows benchmark program called Sisoft Sandra: Memory Bandwidth which also has other systems data listed for comparison (it uses a proprietary bandwidth algo because, I used it because alot of hardware review sites list it). I also ran Byte Unix Benchmark and it scored a 156 which is about an xp 1700 score wise. Thanks for the info on the bios that supports pc3200. Although it definitely seems faster than anything I've used before, this is my first dual processor box and I'm just thrilled at the Opterons although now I'd be tempted to have just gotten the Athlon 64 3200+ or the clawhammer 3000+ those systems fly I hear but Suse runs great I was suprised how easy it was after I installed the new BIOS, *huge* thanks to Andreas Jaeger and Suse for that 9.0 64bit edition now I guess I'll try to instal 2.6.0 again to see if the nic will work I don't really need 2.6.0 but it was so easy to install it from rpm I had to try it, oh maybe thats why I didn't compile it specifically for my hardware. >From: Mark Horton <mark(a)nostromo.net> >I was curious about your memory bandwidth tests. What program do you >use for this? I've been curious about what kind of memory throughput my >system has. I'm using pc2700 too. Although they've relased a bios that >supports pc3200. > > _________________________________________________________________ Its our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

1 0

Re: [suse-amd64] FYI: Tyan S2885 with more than 4GB: New BIOS (fwd)
by Andrew Halliwell 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

And verily, didst Andrew Halliwell announce to the hordes: >From ah(a)gnd.com Thu Dec 18 13:19:57 2003 Return-Path: <ah(a)gnd.com> Received: (from ah@localhost) by gndsys.gnd.domain (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id hBIDJuS08433 for ah(a)gndsys.gnd.domain; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:19:56 GMT From: Andrew Halliwell <ah(a)gnd.com> Message-Id: <200312181319.hBIDJuS08433(a)gndsys.gnd.domain> Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] FYI: Tyan S2885 with more than 4GB: New BIOS To: ah(a)gndsys.gnd.domain (ah) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:19:42 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <no.id> from "ah" at Oct 23, 2003 11:49:26 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on gndsys.gnd.domain X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-96.7 required=5.0 tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_SHORT, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.60 X-Spam-Level: And verily, didst Marcus Barkowsky announce to the hordes: > > Hi! > > That's a very good bios. I have not discovered any new problems yet. > > The graphics system using an NVIDIA 5600 card got a speed-up from 10fps to > 50fps (720x576 pixel) when using plain x11 and 20fps to >100fps when using > sdl. AGP is now automatically detected and used (NVIDIA_GLX and > NVIDIA_kernel). 6GB are detected and used. (Gah! I'm so used to just hitting reply for a mailing list to reply TO it rather than have to piss around cut/pasting addresses into the To: line, or hitting reply and then realising, and having to forward the mail again to the list... why such a silly setup?) Anyway... Got an S2885 here. With 2 1 gig ECC Reg DIMMs, it's fine. With 4, 6 or 8, BANG, kernel panic (when under heavy load of a kernel loop running with -j30 and copying a 2 gig file repeatedly). We found two of the 8 however were duff, cos they paniced the machine even with 2 in. But now we've just got a fresh batch of RAM, and it's still doing it. Can anyone say if this BIOS would resolve the problem I'm having? (although, it's "more than 2 gig" in my case) Or perhaps would the new 2.6.0 be more forgiving of whatever's causing it? We're VERY wary of trying to flash the bios. We tried it last week with the 1.01 first release BIOS and ended up with a dead motherboard.

4 4

SATA on MSI KT8 Neo Mobo
by gareths.rees 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Does anyone have any experience of getting SATA drives to work on a MSI KT8 Mobo? I've just finished installing Suse9.0 Pro AMD64 onto a PATA drive and all went well other than I would like to use a 2x SATA 160 Segate as a raid on either the VIA8237 or the Promise 20378 that are on this board. Only problem is that nothing from either of the SATA chipsets shows up during the boot. I've been looking for the location of the 2.6 kernel on the DVDs but (probably because I'm being stupid) am unable to find it, Any help much appreciated! Best regards and thanks Gareth Rees

4 8

RE: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64
by Alan Gray 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

:-( Just tried that, and no joy. What I cannot understand is the paths its complaining about exist. Got me stumped. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Haul [mailto:jan@haul.de] > Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2003 6:05 PM > To: Alan Gray > Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64 > > > Alan Gray wrote: > > >Sorry Frank, I having a bit of a problem. > > > >I downloaded 2.6.0-test11 from > > > >ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/people/kraxel/x86_64/x86_64/ kernel-smp-26-2.6.0_test11-11.x86_64.rpm > >HELIUM:/usr/src # patch -b < patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1 >can't find file to patch at input line 4 >Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? >The text leading up to this was: >-------------------------- >|diff -uNr -X exclude linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c >|--- linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:29:12.000000000 +0100 >|+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:33:52.671960352 +0100 >-------------------------- > >I could insert all the differences by hand, but I'm gonna make a mistake. >Any help/abuse welcome. > > > > Hi, the patch program gave the right hint: Did you try # cd /usr/src/linux # patch -p 1 ... This should help (I think). Cheers, Jan

1 0

RE: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64
by Alan Gray 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Sorry Frank, I having a bit of a problem. I downloaded 2.6.0-test11 from ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/people/kraxel/x86_64/x86_64/kernel-smp-26-2.6.0_test11-11.x86_64.rpm That all compiled aok. Now trying to patch using the link from http://lwn.net/Articles/62230/ The patch program keeps complaining. My /usr/src folder looks like total 107 1 drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 488 Dec 18 15:47 . 0 drwxr-xr-x 15 root root 408 Dec 11 02:49 .. 16 -rw------- 1 root root 16384 Dec 18 15:47 .patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1.swp 1 drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 656 Dec 11 02:42 kernel-modules 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 18 14:53 linux -> linux-2.6.0-test11-11 1 drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 728 Dec 15 02:36 linux-2.4.21-143 0 drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 120 Dec 15 02:35 linux-2.4.21-143-include 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 18 15:33 linux-2.6.0-test11 -> linux-2.6.0-test11-11 1 drwxr-xr-x 21 root root 1200 Dec 18 15:03 linux-2.6.0-test11-11 1 drwxrwxr-x 18 1046 1046 600 Dec 18 14:47 linux-2.6.0-test11_original 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Dec 15 02:36 linux-include -> linux-2.4.21-143-include 0 drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 168 Dec 11 02:48 packages 52 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 52725 Dec 18 09:09 patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1 36 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 33032 Dec 18 10:40 patch-2.6.0-test11-bk13 Trying to patch gives HELIUM:/usr/src # patch -b < patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1 can't find file to patch at input line 4 Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff -uNr -X exclude linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c |--- linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:29:12.000000000 +0100 |+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:33:52.671960352 +0100 -------------------------- File to patch: HELIUM:/usr/src # ls -ls linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 32 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 31504 Dec 12 20:24 linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c HELIUM:/usr/src # ls -ls linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 32 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 31504 Dec 12 20:24 linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c HELIUM:/usr/src # man patch Reformatting patch(1), please wait... HELIUM:/usr/src # HELIUM:/usr/src # ls -las > /media/floppy/usrsrc.txt HELIUM:/usr/src # HELIUM:/usr/src # vi patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1 HELIUM:/usr/src # ! bash: syntax error near unexpected token `newline' HELIUM:/usr/src # HELIUM:/usr/src # patch -b < patch-2.6.0-test11-bart1 can't find file to patch at input line 4 Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff -uNr -X exclude linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c |--- linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:29:12.000000000 +0100 |+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/mpparse.c 2003-12-08 00:33:52.671960352 +0100 -------------------------- File to patch: Skip this patch? [y] Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 17 Perhaps you should have used the -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |diff -uNr -X exclude linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/mm/fault.c linux/arch/i386/mm/fault.c |--- linux-2.6.0-test11/arch/i386/mm/fault.c 2003-12-08 00:29:13.000000000 +0100 |+++ linux/arch/i386/mm/fault.c 2003-12-08 00:33:50.645268456 +0100 -------------------------- File to patch: I could insert all the differences by hand, but I'm gonna make a mistake. Any help/abuse welcome. Regards Alan

1 0

RE: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64
by Alan Gray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think I'm having a blond day. I've answered question 1 myself. www.google.com linux kernel test11 source Time to run away and hide! > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Gray > Sent: Thursday, 18 December 2003 8:04 AM > To: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > Subject: RE: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64 > > > Hi Frank, > > I am about to give this a try. Two questions if you don't mind. > > 1) where did you get the "2.6.0-test11" kernel from & > 2) are you running SMP? > > Andreas posted this a little while back, > > > Hello again, > > > > will the kernel 2.6 also be available for SUSE-Linux9.0-AMD64 as an > > update ? > > Not as an official and supported update. You can get it already today > From ftp.suse.com/pub/people/kraxel/x86_64/ > > but I'm guessing that this is not test11 ? > > Thanks in advance, > Alan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan Gray > > Sent: Monday, 15 December 2003 8:38 AM > > To: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > > Subject: RE: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64 > > > > > > Thanks for that. Will give a go later. > > > > Dumb question. I presume you stll have to boot strap via IDE disks > > when installing 9.0, get a system running then apply the > > patches, recompile, > > then you'll get the SATA disks available ? > > > > Regards > > Alan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Frank Pieczynski [mailto:pieczy@web.de] > > > Sent: Monday, 15 December 2003 5:14 AM > > > To: Alan Gray > > > Cc: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > > > Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Dual AMD 64 > > > > > > > > > On Sunday 14 December 2003 02:52, Alan Gray wrote: > > > > I built a dual AMD on Suse 9.0 using a Tyan K2885 mother > > > board (needed > > > > AGP). DONT use SATA drives. No drivers and Silicon Image > > > cant tell us when > > > > :-( > > > > > > I got my two HITACHI 160GB SATA running connected to the > > > SiI3114 of my Tyan > > > Thunder K8W today :-) > > > Here you find the patch for the 2.6.0-test11 kernel: > > > http://lwn.net/Articles/62230/ > > > > > > hdparm shows 58MB/s, no error until now, heavy compiling > > > today using the > > > drives. > > > > > > Regards > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Check the List-Unsubscribe header to unsubscribe > > For additional commands, email: suse-amd64-help(a)suse.com > > > > > > -- > Check the List-Unsubscribe header to unsubscribe > For additional commands, email: suse-amd64-help(a)suse.com > >

1 0

FYI: Tyan S2885 with more than 4GB: New BIOS
by Andreas Jaeger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI: Since some people reported problems with more than 4 GB and AGP on a Tyan S2885: The new BIOS at ftp://ftp.tyan.com/Chipset_AMD/K8/2885BIOS/2885001a.zip is supposed to fix these issues (I haven't tested it myself yet). Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj(a)suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

3 2

RE: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support
by Alan Gray 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

But I am greedy. I want speed ;-) Maybe more money then sense ? Yes, the xx320's should be SCSI command compatable with the xx160's. Hummmmmmm > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:aj@suse.de] > Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 8:41 AM > To: Alan Gray > Cc: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support > > > "Alan Gray" <alan.gray(a)12d.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Danger, danger Will Roberson. Knowing my luck at the moment, > > I'll buy the one that does not work. > > ;-( > > > Any of these definately yes/no. > > 29160 gets a definite yes, I just checked a system that has it ;-) > > Note it's the same source driver for all of these... > > Andreas > -- > Andreas Jaeger, aj(a)suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj > SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C > C272 A126 >

1 0

RE: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support
by Alan Gray 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

Hi, Danger, danger Will Roberson. Knowing my luck at the moment, I'll buy the one that does not work. Any of these definately yes/no. Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:aj@suse.de] > Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2003 5:38 AM > To: Alan Gray > Cc: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support > > > "Alan Gray" <alan.gray(a)12d.com> writes: > > > The 29320 & 39320 ? > > or the 29160 & 39160 ? > > or all of the above ? > > I think all of them but those are too many to remember and that was > over half a year ago... > > > > In both Non RAID & RAID modes? (Not that I'm planning RAID > mode anyway). > > Only in non-RAID mode AFAIR, > > Andreas > > > > > Regards > > Alan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:aj@suse.de] > >> Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 5:04 PM > >> To: Alan Gray > >> Cc: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > >> Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support > >> > >> > >> "Alan Gray" <alan.gray(a)12d.com> writes: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Looking on Suse's hardware support list, the 29320 & 39320 > >> scsi controllers > >> > are not listed. The 29160 is but the 39160 is listed as > problematic. > >> > >> Both were tested successfully at some time, seems we > forgot to update > >> the site. > >> > >> Andreas > >> -- > >> Andreas Jaeger, aj(a)suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj > >> SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > >> GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C > >> C272 A126 > >> > > Andreas > -- > Andreas Jaeger, aj(a)suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj > SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C > C272 A126 >

2 1

RE: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support
by Alan Gray 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

The 29320 & 39320 ? or the 29160 & 39160 ? or all of the above ? In both Non RAID & RAID modes? (Not that I'm planning RAID mode anyway). Regards Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Jaeger [mailto:aj@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 5:04 PM > To: Alan Gray > Cc: suse-amd64(a)suse.com > Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Adaptec 29320 & 39320 Support > > > "Alan Gray" <alan.gray(a)12d.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Looking on Suse's hardware support list, the 29320 & 39320 > scsi controllers > > are not listed. The 29160 is but the 39160 is listed as problematic. > > Both were tested successfully at some time, seems we forgot to update > the site. > > Andreas > -- > Andreas Jaeger, aj(a)suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj > SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C > C272 A126 >

2 1