Which architecture for dual core celeron processor? Debian lenny.
The Natural Philosopher
On Intel DG31 board.
No other fancy hardware involved, and can I boot off a 1GByte stick? Or
do I need to burn a dvd.
Dan Aldous
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:21:38 +0000
> From: The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup, comp.os.linux.misc
> Subject: Which architecture for dual core celeron processor? Debian lenny.
> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
I belive the Intel EM64T is equivilent to AMD64 but not sure. IA64 was
just for the Itanium architecture, but when in doubt, x86 is always a safe
choice.
sa...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
The Natural Philosopher
>
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:21:38 +0000
>> From: The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup, comp.os.linux.misc
>> Subject: Which architecture for dual core celeron processor? Debian
>> lenny.
>
>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
>
> I belive the Intel EM64T is equivilent to AMD64 but not sure. IA64 was
> just for the Itanium architecture, but when in doubt, x86 is always a
> safe choice.
>
So its definitly NOT IA64 then?
Amaranth
> Dan Aldous wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> >> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:21:38 +0000
> >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup, comp.os.linux.misc
> >> Subject: Which architecture for dual core celeron processor? Debian
> >> lenny.
>
> >> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
>
> > I belive the Intel EM64T is equivilent to AMD64 but not sure. IA64 was
> > just for the Itanium architecture, but when in doubt, x86 is always a
> > safe choice.
>
> yeah..but this time the 64 bit stuff is stabler than last install.
> So its definitly NOT IA64 then?
>
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.lonestar.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeron
The Celeron brand is a range of x86 CPUs from Intel targeted at budget/
value personal computers—with the motto, "delivering great quality at
an exceptional value".
HTH.
The Natural Philosopher
All true, but what is it to do with the question?
> HTH.
Amaranth
Use a x86 distro for your Celeron?
The Natural Philosopher
but which one?
We've eliminated the IA64, so that leaves the AM64 and the x86..
I am not sure that the x86 supports dual core tho. or 64 bit addressing..
Jean-David Beyer
Certainly Red Hat Enterprise Linux and CentOS both support multiple
processors. I have two Pentium III processors in one box running CentOS 4
(at least CentOS 5 is out now), and I have two Xeon Hyperthreaded processors
in a box running RHEL 5. A hyperthreaded Xeon is _almost_ a dual core
processor. N.B.: a friend of mine used to say "Almost means Not." In any
case, they both support dual processors, and count multiple processors as
such; i.e., my dual hyperthreaded machine thinks it runs four processors.
I Fedora used to support multiple processors, and I imagine this includes
multiple core processors as well. I cannot imagine this has been removed
from Fedora.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:10:01 up 4 days, 1:26, 3 users, load average: 4.16, 4.12, 4.09
Mike Keighley
>>>>>> I belive the Intel EM64T is equivilent to AMD64 but not sure.
> but which one?
> We've eliminated the IA64, so that leaves the AM64 and the x86..
I believe this page gives a definitive answer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
... namely "AMD64"
> I am not sure that the x86 supports dual core tho. or 64 bit
> addressing..
I see no reason why x86 should not support dual core, since it
supported multiple cpus (though in separate sockets) for many years.
64-bit addressing certainly not, however.
The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
>>>>>>> I belive the Intel EM64T is equivilent to AMD64 but not sure.
>
>> but which one?
>
>> We've eliminated the IA64, so that leaves the AM64 and the x86..
>
> I believe this page gives a definitive answer
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
>
> ... namely "AMD64"
>
Finally, a definitive answer :-)
> > I am not sure that the x86 supports dual core tho. or 64 bit
> > addressing..
>
> I see no reason why x86 should not support dual core, since it supported
> multiple cpus (though in separate sockets) for many years.
>
> 64-bit addressing certainly not, however.
OK, AMD64 it is then, and hope that it detects the processor and 'does
the right thing' with the twin cores.
Jules
>> Use a x86 distro for your Celeron?
>
> but which one?
>
> We've eliminated the IA64, so that leaves the AM64 and the x86..
>
> I am not sure that the x86 supports dual core tho. or 64 bit addressing..
Hmm, so are there specific bits needed outside of the kernel to support
multiple cores? I'd always assumed it was just a kernel thing - and IME
it's usually a good idea to upgrade + rebuild the kernel when installing a
distro anyway, purely because things have probably moved on a bit
against what's on the distro media, and also to trim some of the extra
crud out.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:48:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Use a x86 distro for your Celeron?
>> but which one?
>>
>> We've eliminated the IA64, so that leaves the AM64 and the x86..
>>
>> I am not sure that the x86 supports dual core tho. or 64 bit addressing..
>
> Hmm, so are there specific bits needed outside of the kernel to support
> multiple cores?
No, but the distro you use defines the kernels and possibly the run time
libaries tc.
> I'd always assumed it was just a kernel thing - and IME
> it's usually a good idea to upgrade + rebuild the kernel when installing a
> distro anyway, purely because things have probably moved on a bit
> against what's on the distro media, and also to trim some of the extra
> crud out.
>
>
That's too much like hard work. I should be having plenty of RAM so a
slightly bloated kernel wont be a problem.
I'm far more concerned with processor speed on this on than file sizes
and suchlike.
So 64bit plus dual core is what I want to use..Debian Lenny has just
gone 'stable' so thats pretty up to to date.
It seems that the x86 versus AMD64 is really 32 bit versus 64bit, and
the kernel self configures somehow to do th dual core bit.
I assume that it allocates process on a round robin or least used core
basis...
Matt Giwer
For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM in the
computer use the 64 distribution.
However for about another year 32 bit multiprocessing will be marginally
better than 64 because 1GB in 64 bit is 2GB in 32 bit. While the 64 is
intrinsically faster the RAM to SWAP file is a bottleneck. 1GB for a 64 is the
minimum you should have. Anything less DID cause destructive errors when I
tried 64 bit on a half Gig of RAM.
Bottom line is you can likely get better performance for another year or so
installing the 32 bit version.
But there is a kicker in this. If it is dual core 64 you need 2GB for a 64
bit OS. To have a top performing dual core 64 you need 4GB of RAM. If you will
trust I am right you can see why it is going this way.
By "top performing" I mean on the threshold of diminishing returns for
increased RAM.
--
The time has come to declare Israel's military a criminal
organization and prosecute any member who can be found.
Doing one's duty cannot be accepted as an excuse.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4114
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Fri Mar 20 05:49:20 EDT 2009
Hans-Peter Diettrich
> However for about another year 32 bit multiprocessing will be
> marginally better than 64 because 1GB in 64 bit is 2GB in 32 bit.
Not really. I remember that 32 bit applications did not use more memory
than 16 bit applications did. The code size was equivalent (or less) for
32 bit apps (check yourself for 32/64 bit), and in the data segments
only the pointers grow from 32 to 64 bits, and possibly alignment gaps
grow as well. All other (numerical and character) data stays unaffected.
DoDi
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
>> On Intel DG31 board.
>> No other fancy hardware involved, and can I boot off a 1GByte stick?
>> Or do I need to burn a dvd.
>
> For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM
> in the computer use the 64 distribution.
>
> However for about another year 32 bit multiprocessing will be
> marginally better than 64 because 1GB in 64 bit is 2GB in 32 bit. While
> the 64 is intrinsically faster the RAM to SWAP file is a bottleneck. 1GB
> for a 64 is the minimum you should have. Anything less DID cause
> destructive errors when I tried 64 bit on a half Gig of RAM.
>
Thanks. useful tip. Going 4GB. ;-)
RAM is apparently so bloody cheap right now..didnt seem any point in not
filling it up.
However I don't think that 64 bit mans twice as much memory needed.
20-30% seems the accepted norm.
> Bottom line is you can likely get better performance for another
> year or so installing the 32 bit version.
>
> But there is a kicker in this. If it is dual core 64 you need 2GB
> for a 64 bit OS. To have a top performing dual core 64 you need 4GB of
> RAM. If you will trust I am right you can see why it is going this way.
>
> By "top performing" I mean on the threshold of diminishing returns
> for increased RAM.
To be honest the main reason I want the new machine is because many
tasks on screen - several web pages open and maybe a few online vids
playing, cause this old MAC (400Mhz 64bit power PC) to sit here spinning
its wheels showing 100% CPU and when it swaps..cos Firefox on MACOS X
seems to have a mem leak .. that's it.
And compressing/decompressing stuff takes an age..When thunderbird
decides to compress a gig of old mailboxes..
Likewise the existing WinPc is even more restricted with 1/2 GBYTE RAM
and when processing large pictures and drawings (what its used for,
mainly) it takes forever..
And the *entry* level machine from my trusted supplier is a dual core 64
bit celeron...
So it seemed to me that most of my speed issues were actually lack of
CPU with a bit of lack of RAM.
>
The Natural Philosopher
Yes, that's my understanding as well. Instructions are still byte
boundary sized and fed into a pipeline.Data pointers get bigger in true
64 bit mode..but one assumes that a 32 bit coded program wont any
bigger and will still run..
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64?
>> On Intel DG31 board.
>> No other fancy hardware involved, and can I boot off a 1GByte stick?
>> Or do I need to burn a dvd.
>
> For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM
> in the computer use the 64 distribution.
>
I can issue a stern warning
ON NO ACCOUNT USE THE 64 BIT DEBIAN LENNY KERNEL IF YOU WANT ANYTHING
3rd PARTY TO WORK
Spent 10 hours on it so far, given up.
Thunderbird doesn't work. Even after pulling down all the compat
libraries AND trying to recompile sources.
Firefox after 3 hours did just work, after I *compiled* the latest stuff
up.
Scanner not recognised.
I spent over an hour trying every keymap in the system to get a standard
logitech keyboard to work with the right keys in the right place for the
standard UK layout. Completely wrong. I managed complete gobbledy gook
or US layout only.
Sitting here on a windows machine waiting while it downloads/installs
the 32 bit stuff.
I reckon proper 64 bit operation in terms of everything hanging together
is at least a year away.
This is pretty sad.
Bob Hauck
> ON NO ACCOUNT USE THE 64 BIT DEBIAN LENNY KERNEL IF YOU WANT ANYTHING
> 3rd PARTY TO WORK
> Thunderbird doesn't work. Even after pulling down all the compat
> libraries AND trying to recompile sources.
Why didn't you install the one Debian packages? They call it "icedove"
for trademark reasons but it is the same thing. I think that would be a
lot easier than recompiling such a complex app.
"apt-cache search thunderbird" would have made this renaming clear.
> Firefox after 3 hours did just work, after I *compiled* the latest
> stuff up.
Same question. They call it "iceweasel".
I'm not clear on why you think your issues with the keyboard have
anything to do with the system being 64-bit. But I'll take your word
for it. Sorry, don't know how to fix that.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Darren Salt
> Matt Giwer wrote:
[snip]
>> For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM
>> in the computer use the 64 distribution.
> I can issue a stern warning
> ON NO ACCOUNT USE THE 64 BIT DEBIAN LENNY KERNEL IF YOU WANT ANYTHING
> 3rd PARTY TO WORK
Which 64-bit kernel would that be? Debian supports several 64-bit CPUs... ;-)
> Spent 10 hours on it so far, given up.
[snip some stuff for which "apt-cache search $KEYWORD" would provide answers]
> I spent over an hour trying every keymap in the system to get a standard
> logitech keyboard to work with the right keys in the right place for the
> standard UK layout. Completely wrong. I managed complete gobbledy gook or
> US layout only.
You want pc105 & gb.
[snip]
> I reckon proper 64 bit operation in terms of everything hanging together
> is at least a year away.
Meanwhile, I've been using 64-bit (specifically, amd64) for a few years now
and while I saw a few problems at first, they've all disappeared.
Your problems you'd have just the same regardless of architecture...
(Oh, and if you do install the 32-bit stuff, which is presumably i386, then I
suggest using a 64-bit kernel anyway.)
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| Kill all extremists!
The value of a program is proportional to the weight of its output.
The Natural Philsopher
> I demand that The Natural Philosopher may or may not have written...
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> [snip]
>>> For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM
>>> in the computer use the 64 distribution.
>
>> I can issue a stern warning
>
>> ON NO ACCOUNT USE THE 64 BIT DEBIAN LENNY KERNEL IF YOU WANT ANYTHING
>> 3rd PARTY TO WORK
>
> Which 64-bit kernel would that be? Debian supports several 64-bit CPUs... ;-)
>
AMD64.
>> Spent 10 hours on it so far, given up.
> [snip some stuff for which "apt-cache search $KEYWORD" would provide answers]
>
>> I spent over an hour trying every keymap in the system to get a standard
>> logitech keyboard to work with the right keys in the right place for the
>> standard UK layout. Completely wrong. I managed complete gobbledy gook or
>> US layout only.
>
> You want pc105 & gb.
>
Well that is what worked in te 32 bit install? is that weird or what?
> [snip]
>> I reckon proper 64 bit operation in terms of everything hanging together
>> is at least a year away.
>
> Meanwhile, I've been using 64-bit (specifically, amd64) for a few years now
> and while I saw a few problems at first, they've all disappeared.
>
WEll the real issue is that the third party binaries dont work unless
compiled agaisnt the 64 bit librariers, and the current lenny stable
comabtibilty libraiers were not compelete, so the whole thing became an
issue of either getting a complete compile env. going and making from
sources, happen - possibly with newer libriers than it had been
originally compiled againts .
> Your problems you'd have just the same regardless of architecture...
>
No. They would not, as having installed the 32 bit X86 stuff things went
considerably smoother and faeter.
As you can see thunderbird 'just worked' as did Firefox. I had a few
issues in comprehensionm surrounding getting flash working, more down to
paucity of documentation than anything else, and spent all niight
recompiling Sane to get a scanner working - definite bug in the distro
there - but apart from that and a few bits of tuning, the desktop is
almost there. An oddity with sound, which works and doesn't work
depending..on something I haven't pinned down. yet.
> (Oh, and if you do install the 32-bit stuff, which is presumably i386, then I
> suggest using a 64-bit kernel anyway.)
>
Dunno how to do that.
Actually, coming from a Mac this time around this was not as seamless as
I had hoped.
I am willing to conce3de4 tht IF you restrict yourselfe to debian tested
packages - ice wotsit and so on - then things are pretty good, but one
of the things about computers is theitr ability to run other people's code.
I think that Lenny stable isn't as stable as one would like ;-) and the
world out there hasn't yet caught up with the 64 bit linux libs.,. Like
adobe flash etc.
OTOH I WAS impressed that - although nowhere near as pretty as a
Mac..no rounded edges distinct window trails if windows were moved fast
- and nodrop shadows, and I have yet to get the full catalogue of fonts
working on X11, the speed was very good, and everythinmg bar the scanner
on the USB side 'just worked' memory stick, camera, mouse: And I got the
one thing I wanted, a machine fast enough to play flash videos without
stuttering.
Andrew Gideon
> Hmm, so are there specific bits needed outside of the kernel to support
> multiple cores?
We had a problem with Fedora 9 and 10 (and possibly 8; my recollection is
unclear) on certain dual core machines from a few years ago. We traced
this back to irqbalance. With this not running, the machines wouldn't
lock up.
- Andrew
Darren Salt
written...
> Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that The Natural Philosopher may or may not have written...
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> For any processor with a 64 in its name and at least one gig of RAM
>>>> in the computer use the 64 distribution.
>>> I can issue a stern warning
>>> ON NO ACCOUNT USE THE 64 BIT DEBIAN LENNY KERNEL IF YOU WANT ANYTHING
>>> 3rd PARTY TO WORK
>> Which 64-bit kernel would that be? Debian supports several 64-bit CPUs...
>> ;-)
> AMD64.
Thought so.
>>> Spent 10 hours on it so far, given up.
>> [snip some stuff for which "apt-cache search $KEYWORD" would provide
>> answers]
>>> I spent over an hour trying every keymap in the system to get a standard
>>> logitech keyboard to work with the right keys in the right place for the
>>> standard UK layout. Completely wrong. I managed complete gobbledy gook or
>>> US layout only.
>> You want pc105 & gb.
> Well that is what worked in te 32 bit install? is that weird or what?
Well, unless you made some silly mistake somewhere, yes.
>> [snip]
>>> I reckon proper 64 bit operation in terms of everything hanging together
>>> is at least a year away.
>> Meanwhile, I've been using 64-bit (specifically, amd64) for a few years
>> now and while I saw a few problems at first, they've all disappeared.
> WEll the real issue is that the third party binaries dont work unless
> compiled agaisnt the 64 bit librariers, and the current lenny stable
> comabtibilty libraiers were not compelete,
The sooner multiarch is in place, the better for this kind of thing...
> so the whole thing became an issue of either getting a complete compile
> env. going and making from sources, happen - possibly with newer libriers
> than it had been originally compiled againts .
Maybe.
>> Your problems you'd have just the same regardless of architecture...
> No. They would not, as having installed the 32 bit X86 stuff things went
> considerably smoother and faeter.
Well, apparently not the keyboard one, but iceweasel and icedove at least...
> As you can see thunderbird 'just worked' as did Firefox. I had a few issues
> in comprehensionm surrounding getting flash working, more down to paucity
> of documentation than anything else,
The usual advice is to install flashplugin-nonfree from unstable, or add
debian-multimedia to your sources.list (there's an equivalent package there,
the name of which I forget).
> and spent all niight recompiling Sane to get a scanner working - definite
> bug in the distro there
Report it, then, if it's not already reported. (reportbug is useful here.)
That said, if it's already fixed in unstable, you could watch for the fix
turning up in testing then, hopefully, backports. (I find it useful to have
deb-src entries for at least unstable and experimental; but then I have deb
entries for them anyway, and rely on apt pinning.)
> - but apart from that and a few bits of tuning, the desktop is almost
> there. An oddity with sound, which works and doesn't work depending..on
> something I haven't pinned down. yet.
Presumably you're using ALSA. If things are changing between boots, check
/proc/asound/cards; some index pinning may be needed (via module options).
>> (Oh, and if you do install the 32-bit stuff, which is presumably i386,
>> then I suggest using a 64-bit kernel anyway.)
> Dunno how to do that.
$ apt-cache search amd64 | grep ^linux
on a convenient i386 box shows several package, including
linux-image-2.6.26-1-amd64. Install that, make sure that it's the default
kernel, reboot.
> Actually, coming from a Mac this time around this was not as seamless as I
> had hoped.
> I am willing to concede tht IF you restrict yourselfe to debian tested
> packages - ice wotsit and so on - then things are pretty good, but one of
> the things about computers is theitr ability to run other people's code.
True, but if there's a distribution-packaged version, you should use that in
preference. (I sometimes patch and recompile, but even local builds get
installed as .debs.)
> I think that Lenny stable isn't as stable as one would like ;-) and the
> world out there hasn't yet caught up with the 64 bit linux libs.,. Like
> adobe flash etc.
They do actually have Flash for amd64:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html
But you don't need to go there: install flashplugin-nonfree (which is
only in unstable) and it'll fetch it for you.
For Java, you could try icedtea-gcjwebplugin (or cacao-oj6-plugin, but that's
only in experimental).
> OTOH I WAS impressed that - although nowhere near as pretty as a Mac..no
> rounded edges distinct window trails if windows were moved fast - and
> nodrop shadows,
Sounds like you've previously seen the results of buggy graphics drivers...
> and I have yet to get the full catalogue of fonts working on X11, the speed
> was very good, and everythinmg bar the scanner on the USB side 'just
> worked' memory stick, camera, mouse:
If the memory stick doesn't work, it's probably broken or is a bit...
proprietary. Most mice don't pose problems, but I have one (now no longer in
use) which does: I'd have to do some patch-porting to fix up its slightly
wacky (and unknown to the kernel) way of reporting of some button presses.
> And I got the one thing I wanted, a machine fast enough to play flash
> videos without stuttering.
Well, as good a reason as any, I suppose...
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Output less CO2 => avoid massive flooding. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.
Become a programmer and never see the world.
Aragorn
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64? [...]
x86 = Intel or AMD 32-bit x86 - also known as IA32
AMD64 = Intel or AMD 64-bit x86 - also known as x86-64
IA64 = Intel Itanium
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
The Natural Philosopher
> On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:21, someone identifying as *The Natural
> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
>
>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64? [...]
>
> x86 = Intel or AMD 32-bit x86 - also known as IA32
> AMD64 = Intel or AMD 64-bit x86 - also known as x86-64
> IA64 = Intel Itanium
>
compatibility issues. 32 bit 'just worked' with a few notable
exceptions. Every 32 bit 3rd party app I added to the 64 bit core,
resulted in 'no library found' even after I had installed the backwards
compatibility stuff.
Aragorn
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 19 March 2009 18:21, someone identifying as *The Natural
>> Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
>>
>>> Now thoroughly confused, x86, AMD64 or IA64? [...]
>>
>> x86 = Intel or AMD 32-bit x86 - also known as IA32
>> AMD64 = Intel or AMD 64-bit x86 - also known as x86-64
>> IA64 = Intel Itanium
>>
> Bit alte teher Aragorn.
Excuse me? :p
> I finally isntalled 32 bit after struggling with compatibility issues. 32
> bit 'just worked' with a few notable exceptions. Every 32 bit 3rd party
> app I added to the 64 bit core, resulted in 'no library found' even after
> I had installed the backwards compatibility stuff.
Then this is a flaw in the distribution you are using. AMD64 distributions
for desktop use normally come with 32-bit compatibility libraries for lots
of stuff, and some 32-bit browser plugins can be made to work
using /nspluginwrapper./ For most of them however, 64-bit versions are
already available by now.