September 2004 - openSUSE AMD64 - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Playing DVDs on AMD64 system
by larry_prikockis＠natureserve.org 24 Feb '05

24 Feb '05

Has anyone managed to get any DVD playing software running properly under SuSE 9 for the AMD64? I've got an ASUS K8V Deluxe MB and an NVIDIA GF5200FX video card, for what that's worth. I've been trying, with little success, to compile a working version of the 'Ogle' DVD player, but am running into all sorts of dependency issues with RPMs, and missing library issues compiling from source. If someone else has gotten this working, I'd be interested in hearing exactly what RPMs/source files you used and what steps you followed. Thanks in advance ----------------------------------------- Real programmers confuse Christmas and Halloween because DEC 25 = OCT 31

6 8

Re: [suse-amd64] MPlayer 1.0pre5 - Compile Error `CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT'
by Scott Leighton 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

On Thursday 29 July 2004 4:33 am, you wrote: > I had no problems... Try easing back on the functions your compiling > in... Humm, that zings right over my head. I have to admit my ignorance here. As far as I know, I'm not 'compiling in' anything other than what the package itself calls for. I did a... ./configure --enable-libsuffix=64 make Is there something I should be doing to 'ease back on the functions'? Scott > > On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 16:47, Scott Leighton wrote: > > Having a problem compiling the latest version of MPlayer (I did get > > an earlier version compiled with no problems). > > > > Has anyone gotten the 64 bit version of this to compile, or does > > anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve the error: > > `CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT' undeclared here (not in a function) > > > > Scott > > > > > > helphand@helphand:~/MPlayer-1.0pre5> make > > make -C libvo > > make[1]: Entering directory `/home/helphand/MPlayer-1.0pre5/libvo' > > cc -c -I../libvo -I../../libvo -I/usr/X11/include -O4 -pipe -ffast-math > > -fomit-frame-pointer -D_REENTRANT -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE > > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -I. -I.. -I../osdep -I/usr/include/freetype2 > > -I/usr/X11/include -I/usr/include/directfb -DMPG12PLAY -o vo_fbdev.o > > vo_fbdev.c > > In file included from /usr/include/asm/pda.h:4, > > from /usr/include/asm-x86_64/thread_info.h:14, > > from /usr/include/asm/thread_info.h:4, > > from /usr/include/linux/thread_info.h:21, > > from ../osdep/kerneltwosix.h:4, > > from vo_fbdev.c:21: > > /usr/include/asm-x86_64/pda.h:26: error: `CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT' > > undeclared here (not in a function) > > /usr/include/asm-x86_64/pda.h:26: error: requested alignment is not a > > constant In file included from /usr/include/asm/processor.h:4, > > from /usr/include/linux/prefetch.h:13, > > from /usr/include/linux/list.h:7, > > from ../osdep/kerneltwosix.h:5, > > from vo_fbdev.c:21: > > /usr/include/asm-x86_64/processor.h:229: error: > > `CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT' undeclared here (not in a function) > > /usr/include/asm-x86_64/processor.h:229: error: requested alignment is > > not a constant > > make[1]: *** [vo_fbdev.o] Error 1 > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/helphand/MPlayer-1.0pre5/libvo' > > make: *** [libvo/libvo.a] Error 2 > > helphand@helphand:~/MPlayer-1.0pre5> > > -- > > POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier > > http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ > > Linux 2.6.5-7.95-default x86_64 -- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.5-7.95-default x86_64

5 13

Re: [suse-amd64] Speed comparisons... amd64 vs em64t?
by chu＠tes-mail.jpl.nasa.gov 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Kees Hoekzema wrote: >The problem with this test, and anands test too, is that in the mysql >benchmark they use mysql's own benchmark. That benchmark does a shitload >of inserts and selects, but not the kind you would use in a webpage >for instance. I'm going to run them too, and probably get a whole lot >different results with my own benchmark based on our website. > >Last time I ran my own benchmark I tested a 32bits vs a 64bits mysql >binary. MySQL's own benchmark gave the 64 bits version quite a lead, but >in my testing the 32 bits was roughly 20% faster than the 64bits. I've >tested it a couple of times and every time the 32 bits was in the lead >up to 20%. Since than I lost my belief in mysql's benchmarks a bit ;). The only benchmarks that matters to you are your own. Aside fron that, my benchmarks between 32 and 64 bit systems have shown that I get the best results on each system using code built for those specific architectures. I have 32 bit apps that were simply dragged and dropped into the 64 bit systems with some performance improvements. But the big improvements came when we recompiled our apps using new versions of GCC that supported the 64 bit architecture of the Opterons. For our numerically intensive applications, we saw over 70% improvements over 32 bit systems running at the same clock speed. But there was another cost that affected the throughput. The 64 bit compiled apps would use up more memory, so the memory that was just adequate to support the 32 bit apps would not be enough for 64 bit apps, and the subsequent swapping would make the apps run very slowly, as expected. I think that if you can rebuild your mysql binaries from source on the 64 bit system using the latest GCC compilers, you can gain huge increases in performance as well. eyc

3 4

Speed comparisons... amd64 vs em64t?
by mmarion＠qualcomm.com 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

>From "Re: [suse-amd64] Giving up on 64-bit Linux for now" Thread... > Currently, dual opteron 246 (2 Ghz) with 8 Gbyte memory is the fastest > performer running our application, compared with Apple dual G5 (2Ghz) and > dual Xeon (2.8 Ghz) by a wide margin. Speaking of which... Does anyone else have any decent comparisons of more real-world apps (not just synthetic benchmarks) between differing 64bit archs, especially opteron vs Intel? I tossed together a quick set of tests using 'openssl speed rsa' between IA64 and opteron (older 2.4 kernel systems) then amd64 vs em64t on some SLES9 installs (http://www.miguelito.org/openssl) and it looks like amd has a nice lead right now. Would love to see more application comparisons though. -- Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Staff Engineer-http://www.qualcomm.com [It's Halloween Kitty gives out raisins] Kids: "Ewwwww..." Kitty: "No, raisins are good for you. Raisins are nature's candy." [As soon as she closes the sliding glass door eggs hit it] Red: "..and eggs are nature's hand grenade. Kitty, don't give them raisins.. it just pisses them off."

7 7

Re: [suse-amd64] Speed comparisons... amd64 vs em64t?
by Juan Erbes 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

Mensaje citado por: Kees Hoekzema <kees(a)tweakers.net>: > On Tuesday 21 September 2004 20:00, mmarion(a)qualcomm.com wrote: > > Does anyone else have any decent comparisons of more real-world apps (not > > just synthetic benchmarks) between differing 64bit archs, especially > > opteron vs Intel? > I currently have an 3.0GHz Xeon (w/ em64t), a 3.6Ghz xeon (w/ em64t) and > some > dual opterons (244,248, maybe 250 too). Those are for reviewing. > > First I want to compare MySQL benchmarks, using both 32 and 64 bits > binaries > and a mysql compiled from source with gcc 3.4.x. The benchmark will consist > > of a copy of our database and running a script that does some real-life > queries on it with different concurrency levels. Secondly i want to compare > > webserver performance, apache 2.x w/ dynamic PHP scripts and tux for static > > files, lets see which platform is the best webserver. > Alternativly I want to time some comilations (how fast can they compile a > vanilla kernel 10 times etc, useless but a nice comparison ;)). > > > Would love to see more application comparisons though. > > If you have any more idea\'s of real-world benchmarks, please say so, and > i\'ll > try to get them tested too and post the results back to the list. > > Ultimatly I want to put together a series of (public available) real-world > benchmarks which I want to run on quite some platforms to get a nice > overview > of speed improvements. > ¿How much Gigabytes has the database? I mean, that for a real test, the database must have many millions of rows. With a database with few megabytes, its\'nt a real test for 64 bits. __________________________________ Registrate desde http://servicios.arnet.com.ar/registracion/registracion.asp?origenid=9 y participá de todos los beneficios del Portal Arnet.

2 1

Sles9 ntpd failing to start
by mmarion＠qualcomm.com 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

Bouncing to this list too since it might be an amd64 thing.. Error: ntpd[527]: cap_set_proc() failed to drop root privileges: Operation not permitted This is on amd64 hosts, google search didn't dig up much.. few mentions of another package, and one ntpd with this, but I didn't see a resolution. Have 30 blades like this.. same hw in a workstation works, though I YOU'd it the other day so it's more up to date then blades... but I YOU'd one of the blades and it's still failing there. Odd. -- Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Staff Engineer-http://www.qualcomm.com Peggy: "You were jealous!" Hank: "No I wasn't. I was mad at you for spending time with that guy. I want you to spend time with me. Jealousy had nothing to do with it!" ==> King of the Hill -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help(a)suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq(a)suse.com

2 2

Re: [suse-amd64] Finding my way
by chu＠tes-mail.jpl.nasa.gov 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

>I am relatively new to linux and suse. i've been running Suse 9.1 on an >AMD64 as a guest os under VMWare. We've been testing linux capabilities >but keeping windows as main os for windows network admin etc. Well I'm >ready to switch to Suse 9.1 64 as host os and put windows on as guest. > >the problem is RAID. My mother board, ASUS K8V has on board raid which i >have been told is not "TRUE" RAID and therfore not supported. So now, I'm >considering software RAID or buying an inexpensive 2 channel SATA RAID >controller. My question is, > - Is hardware RAID worth the extra money in >performance/reliability/etc or should I go with software raid Most of those inexpensive RAID controllers (like the 2 channel types) are nothing more than 2 channel ATA or SATA cards with either hardware or software based RAID0 or RAID1 capabilities. These are either simple striping (RAID0) or mirroring (RAID1). The hardware really doesn't do much in most cases. I think most of them can be configured to present the disks straight to the OS, and let you treat them as regular disks. I am told that configuring RAID0 or RAID1 from Linux can sometimes get better performance out of them than if you let the hardware do the same things. Again, the Linux OS does not have to do much to perform those functions. But my experience is that if one of the drives fail, it's much harder to recover a RAID1 set from Linux than if you had let the hardware take care of the RAIDing. (If you lose a drive in a RAID0 set, you've lost all the data anyway.) The value that a high performance RAID controller gives you is the ability to combine many drives (5 or more) together to provide greater throughput, higher capacity, and redundancy to protect against single drive failures. Such a RAID controller will have a number of features: - Multiple separate disk channels to allow each drive to communicate uninterrupted with the controller. All the new RAID systems using PATA or SATA drives will provide a separate channel for each drive, so each drive becomes a bus master. - A hardware CRC calculator to generate the redundancy code in real-time. Any RAID systems that have to use your CPU to generate the code will be much slower, and sort of defeats the performance aspect of RAID. I am told that the speed of most x86 based processors today may out perform most hardware CRC generators. This may be true, but I still would not want to dedicate my host CPU to processing RAID data. - Some amount of cache memory to buffer host requests. This may be the most important factor for getting good response from a RAID controller. Today's RAID systems can make use of two levels of cache; a large chunk on the controller, and whatever the drives come with. Write requests are usually set up with write-back caching, so host response is pretty instantenous. Without the write-back cache, write requests will have to wait for the actual disk operations to complete. In this case, the more drives there are in the RAID set, the greater the percentage of latency; A write operation from the host will be divided by the number of drives in the set, and the more drives in the set, the smaller chunk of data goes to each drive. But each request to each drive still incurs the same amount of latency. A potential problem with write-back cache is data inconsistency in the event of a power failure. So the RAID systems that guarentee reliability will have some kind of battery backup for the cache in the controller. (But that doesn't do much for the cache in the disks.) Read requests will have to depend on cache look-ahead strategies on the RAID controller. The first of a series of sequential read requests will be slow, as the controller has to wait for seeks and reads from all the drives to complete before handing the data back to the host. Subsequent requests for sequential should be much faster. Some RAID controllers can optimize this with the disk cache. (More than you wanted to know, I'm sure.) eyc

1 0

usb drive problem emachines 6811/kernel 2.6.5-7.108-default
by Warren MacEvoy 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

When I upgraded kernels I lost my usb drive access. usbview shows it when I plug it in, but it never automounts. Worked fine before the kernel upgrade. I'm new to the usb auto-mounting business, so advice on what to look for would be helpful. Thanks, Warren MacEvoy

2 1

Finding my way
by BodellS＠cooleygroup.com 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

I am relatively new to linux and suse. i've been running Suse 9.1 on an AMD64 as a guest os under VMWare. We've been testing linux capabilities but keeping windows as main os for windows network admin etc. Well I'm ready to switch to Suse 9.1 64 as host os and put windows on as guest. the problem is RAID. My mother board, ASUS K8V has on board raid which i have been told is not "TRUE" RAID and therfore not supported. So now, I'm considering software RAID or buying an inexpensive 2 channel SATA RAID controller. My question is, - Is hardware RAID worth the extra money in performance/reliability/etc or should I go with software raid - If hw RAID is the way to go, which has driver support for 64-bit linux? Thanks sandy

2 1

Re: [suse-amd64] Speed comparisons... amd64 vs em64t?
by Vincent Yonemitsu 30 Sep '04

30 Sep '04

I currently have a dual 244 machince and a dual 248 machine at my disposal for testing purposses. The 248 machine is load up with a tyan board 64 bit nic, 64 bit sata raid 10 with four 10k rpm hard drives, 2 gig of ecc ram.The Dual 244 is a little more modest with 1 gig of ram, onboard raid 1 with two 10k sata drives. Feel free to contact me if you want me to test anything out, I also have a pair of single CPU opteron 240's, but they are running as win 2003 64 bit domain controllers. Vincent Yonemitsu Burlington Public Library Information Technology Department (905)639-3611 ext 154 yonemitsuv(a)bpl.on.ca -----Original message----- From: Kees Hoekzema kees(a)tweakers.net Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:27:33 -0400 To: suse-amd64(a)suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-amd64] Speed comparisons... amd64 vs em64t? > On Tuesday 21 September 2004 20:00, mmarion(a)qualcomm.com wrote: > > Does anyone else have any decent comparisons of more real-world apps (not > > just synthetic benchmarks) between differing 64bit archs, especially > > opteron vs Intel? > I currently have an 3.0GHz Xeon (w/ em64t), a 3.6Ghz xeon (w/ em64t) and some > dual opterons (244,248, maybe 250 too). Those are for reviewing. > > First I want to compare MySQL benchmarks, using both 32 and 64 bits binaries > and a mysql compiled from source with gcc 3.4.x. The benchmark will consist > of a copy of our database and running a script that does some real-life > queries on it with different concurrency levels. Secondly i want to compare > webserver performance, apache 2.x w/ dynamic PHP scripts and tux for static > files, lets see which platform is the best webserver. > Alternativly I want to time some comilations (how fast can they compile a > vanilla kernel 10 times etc, useless but a nice comparison ;)). > > > Would love to see more application comparisons though. > > If you have any more idea's of real-world benchmarks, please say so, and i'll > try to get them tested too and post the results back to the list. > > Ultimatly I want to put together a series of (public available) real-world > benchmarks which I want to run on quite some platforms to get a nice overview > of speed improvements. > > - kees > > -- > Check the List-Unsubscribe header to unsubscribe > For additional commands, email: suse-amd64-help(a)suse.com >

1 0