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
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
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
>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."
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.
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
>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
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
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
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
>