A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Who is selling Opteron 4-way or 8-way SMP boards?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 03, 03:32 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Who is selling Opteron 4-way or 8-way SMP boards?

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 04:29:42 GMT, Hugh wrote:
Please recommend.


Sorry, but at the moment nobody is selling a 4 or 8-way SMP board for
the Opteron at the retail level (such boards are rare even for mature
processors, let alone a brand-new one). One company does make a 4-way
board (probably Arima, they made the first dual Opteron board), but it
is not sold at the retail level. Closest that you could come is
probably a bare-bones server from one of the server manufacturer's
that AMD has listed on their website.

Note: this is going to set you back a pretty penny. A 4 or 8-way
Opteron system requires the use of Opteron 8xx series chips, which are
roughly 3 times as expensive as the Opteron 2xx chips. Eunix
(www.eunix.com) will sell you a pretty bare-bones 4-way server, 4U
rackmount case, 4 x Opteron 840 chips (1.4GHz) and 512MB of memory for
$11,534. Going up to the 4 x Opteron 844 chips (1.8GHz) bumps the
price up to $21,534 (all prices in US dollars).

Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for
a DIY job?
My favorite for i32 has been SuSE.


SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in
getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution
is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux
distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their
IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting
an AMD64 distribution.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #2  
Old August 19th 03, 01:57 PM
Rob Stow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, Tony Hill
whined:


One company does make a 4-way board (probably Arima,



Arima shows only a 2xOpteron MB on their website, and on pricewatch.com.


1.) Have you checked out the Opteron "partners" listed at AMD's site ?

2.) There used to be details about a 4-way board at the NewiSys site shortly
after the Opteron launch - no idea if it is still there. (No idea if the
NewiSys web site is still there.)

3.) There are 4-way Opteron vs. Xeon and Itanic benchmarks at AMD. Find
those and then look for a link to the details about the tested systems -
perhaps that link will tell you what mobo was used.

  #3  
Old August 19th 03, 03:59 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hugh wrote:
Please recommend.


A list of available motherboards is located at

http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_boards.html

The only 4-way board is by Newisys, called 'Sobek'. If you go to
www.newisys.com, you'll find they have a machine using this board (4300).
AFAIK, the 4-way machines sold by the likes of Racksaver, Appro etc use
this Newisys design.

Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for
a DIY job?
My favorite for i32 has been SuSE.


I think you have to pay for Suse 8 on AMD64, but there is also
a Rawhide Redhat (beta) at ftp.redhat.com. Haven't tried it, however.

--
Bjørn-Ove Heimsund
  #4  
Old August 20th 03, 02:45 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tony Hill" wrote in message
.com...
Also, which linux distribution would you recommend for
a DIY job?
My favorite for i32 has been SuSE.


SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in
getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution
is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux
distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their
IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting
an AMD64 distribution.


It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the
distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an
exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then
why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for
AMD64?

Yousuf Khan


  #5  
Old August 20th 03, 08:52 PM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote:
"Tony Hill" wrote in message
t.com...
SuSE is probably a good choice. They worked closely with AMD in
getting a Linux distribution for AMD64 to market. Their distribution
is the most mature and probably most functional of the AMD64 Linux
distributions at this point in time, so if you already prefer their
IA-32 distribution, then they are pretty much a no-brainer for getting
an AMD64 distribution.


It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the
distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an
exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then
why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for
AMD64?


The problem isn't the kernel, that's been able to support AMD64 for a
year or more now, long before the hardware was readily available.

The real trick is with the libraries and package dependencies. See,
AMD64 presents a rather tricky problem, it's actually two
architectures in one. Typically Linux is designed for just a single
architecture, ie you compile your kernel using one of the 'arch/'
directories and than all the applications you ever want or need are
compiled for that same architecture. However, with AMD64, you compile
your kernel with 'arch/x86-64', but you can execute code for either
x86-64 or i386 architectures. The kernel can handle this with no
troubles, and statically linked applications aren't a problem either.
The trick is with dynamically linked applications.

First off, you need to recompile all your libraries for x86-64 in
order to support x86-64 binaries. Ideally this should just be a
straight recompile (and indeed it is for most of the more common
ones), but not all libraries are 64-bit safe. The fact is that most
Linux development work is focused exclusively for the IA-32 platform,
so occasionally some slightly assumptions are made which are not true
for other platforms. After that, when you finally do get your
libraries compiled for x86-64, you need to also have some 32-bit
libraries installed so that i386 code can link to those.

All in all, it just takes time for a distribution to put everything
all together. The code is all out there (or is being rapidly
developed), but it takes time/money to packaged it all up. Since most
Linux distributions operate are rather thin profit margins to begin
with, they all have to decide how much emphasis to place on this
project. SuSE was contracted by AMD to do some work, putting them at
a bit of an advantage. They also had a certain marketing interest in
being the #1 operating system supplier for the Opteron. Mandrake now
has a version of their "Corporate Server" distribution available for
the Opteron, and I believe a beta for their desktop distribution
(their server currently seems to be getting DOSed or something, it's
slow as hell). Redhat has beta versions available as well.

Note that these issues also affect, for example, the new Apple
PowerMac G5's, as well as other PPC64 based systems. Sun and SGI also
had to deal with this on their own versions of Unix. It can be made
to work just fine eventually, just takes a bit of time.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #6  
Old August 21st 03, 12:44 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Douglas Bollinger" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the
distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an
exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not,

then
why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for
AMD64?


How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is
Linux, remember.


Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while
you're debugging it?

Yousuf Khan


  #7  
Old August 21st 03, 02:05 AM
Joe Pfeiffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Yousuf Khan" writes:

How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is
Linux, remember.


Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while
you're debugging it?


No. While many people have done just that, under the terms of the
license as soon as you release binary you need to release
corresponding source.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
  #8  
Old August 21st 03, 03:45 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:44:06 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote:
"Douglas Bollinger" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is
Linux, remember.


Yeah, I know, but don't you have the ability to hold back source code while
you're debugging it?


You could, but it's rather pointless. Regardless, the issue is not
with the kernel at all, but with the libraries. The kernel has been
all set to support AMD64 for quite a while before the hardware was
available. Of course, the upcoming 2.6.x series of kernels will
perhaps improve support somewhat, and lots of work is still going on
to support more chipsets and other Opteron hardware.

Interestingly enough, while reading up on Opteron support in the 2.6.x
kernel, the general consensus was that the NUMA optimizations did
absolutely nothing for the Opteron (due to it's 1 processor to 1 node
setup apparently). I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing or
not (AMD always said that NUMA optimizations weren't needed with the
Opteron), but I know some people were expecting some sort of
performance boost for the chip when a NUMA-aware OS was made
available.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #9  
Old October 13th 03, 11:11 PM
Douglas Bollinger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:45:55 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

It seems to me that Linux developments are now being done by the
distributors more than the independent developers. Does Suse have an
exclusive on the AMD64 kernel for a short period of time, or if not, then
why aren't the other distributors simply using the Suse source code for
AMD64?


How would Suse have a "lock" on the AMD64 kernel with the GPL? This is
Linux, remember.

Anyway, it's just that no one else has bothered with it yet. As the
Opteron becomes more popular, I'm sure you will see the other distros put
out a Opteron version. Remember, for a distro, it's more that just copying
Suse's work on the kernel, you have to support it as well. ($$$).

And no, more of the Linux developments are still from independent
developers. Right now, few people have Opteron boxes so you won't see much
work on that yet.

--
Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing.
-- Thomas Tusser

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Opteron or FX5x [email protected] Overclocking AMD Processors 19 May 22nd 04 12:41 AM
Opteron, the chip for supercomputers Yousuf Khan General 49 September 6th 03 12:20 AM
Anybody selling Iwill DK8S Opteron boards in the US? G. Hugh Song General 0 August 19th 03 01:45 AM
Cheapest Opteron system available now? path General 3 August 16th 03 07:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.