FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-11-2010, 08:22 AM
Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
 
Default My next Workstation

LOL@College fund

Better yet, I don't have any yet.

:-)

f(t)

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Billie Walsh <bilwalsh@swbell.net> wrote:







On 07/08/2010 10:19 AM, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail wrote:
I hope you don't mind me asking this here:



Hi guys, I'm currently in the process of researching some hardware for
my next ubuntu workstation.



My goal is to spend between 500 and 600 uds, and I want to put
some enfasis on what I think is the current bottle neck of speed this
days, and that is Hard Drives.



I would like to have a RAID array to have better performance.



I am thinking in getting Intel 2 Core Quad 8300 processor. But I
am open to other choices too. Because Ubuntu is more focus on
software/fake RAID I would like a multicore processor, and 64bit arch
sounds good too.*



So right now my options looks something like this:



Processor * Intel Core 2
Quad 8300
RAM * * * * 1 X 2gb DDR2
800mhz
Mother * * *Intel*Dg43gt
HD * * * * *2 X 500gb SATA
3.0Gb/s



If I could I would like
more drives in RAID.
And if possible real RAID?*
** * I found about this
controller: Syba PCI Express SATA II 4 x Ports RAID Controller Card
SY-PEX40008
** * PCI Express
with transfer rate 2.5 Gb/s Full Duplex channel. Fully Plug & Play
compatible. Supports Raid function 0, 1, 5, 10. SATA II Interface



I
had some people comments about AMD but I am kind of unfamiliar and I
thought the Quad was a nice processor but that it used to be too
overpriced.



Any
comments guides or recommendations would be great, I feel a bit in the
dark with this and would surely appreciate some guidance.



Regards,
f(t)






Liam mentioned an SSHD.



In my experience with computers memory is always going to be faster
than mechanical hard drives. Back in the dark ages I had an old 8088
computer that I installed what was called a "Rampat" board with 100meg
of memory on it. The computer was already running the maximum memory
that it could see so I used the extra as a ramdisk. When I called a
program from my bat file it first copied the program from the hard
drive to the ramdisk and then executed it. There was a slight
performance hit from the copy process but the programs ran so much
faster it was unreal.



I have an Asus EeePC with a 64 gig SSHD, 2 gigs memory and Atom
processor, with 10.4 installed. For speed it kicks butt. It's way
faster than my dual core laptop or quad core desktop [ four gigs memory
on both ]. Boots faster and executes programs faster.



I've heard a lot of talk about long term durability with SSHD's but
then I have some really _OLD_ computers around here with no memory
problems. Some have outlived the original hard drives that were in the
computers by many years. [ two or three hard drives ] YMMV



Something else. Never skimp on memory. Use as much as possible or until
your dipping into the kids college fund, whichever comes first. Best
investment in computer performance.



Just my $1.00 worth [ $0.02 adjusted for inflation ].



--
"A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington




--

ubuntu-users mailing list

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 07-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
 
Default My next Workstation

wow I didn't know that.

Surely I'll compile everything to processor specific.

nice,
f(t)

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 July 2010 20:13, Preston Hagar <prestonh@gmail.com> wrote:


> No, AMD and Intel's use the same instruction set, and are completely

> compatible.

>

> Basically, as a little background info, Intel created the instruction

> set for the "x86" 32-bit processors and licensed it to AMD to use for

> their processors. *AMD created the instruction set for 64-bit

> processors "AMD64" and licensed it to Intel for their 64-bit

> processors. *That is why when you download Ubuntu ISOs, you will see

> i686 (Intel 32-bit instruction set) and AMD64 (AMD 64-bit instruction

> set) "versions" *For 64 bit Intel processors, you would still use the

> AMD64 download, because they use the AMD64 instructions set.

>

> Hope this helps.

>

> Preston

>



That is mostly true, but each processor has it's own features that the

other doesn't have, and processor-specific optimizations. Ubuntu, so

far as I know, compiles for generic hardware but if the user were to

recompile his own software than he might be able to benchmark a

difference. Nothing a desktop user would feel in the real world,

though, in my opinion.



The OP might want to take a look at Swiftfox, a Firefox build specific

to each processor.





--

Dotan Cohen



http://gibberish.co.il

http://what-is-what.com



--

ubuntu-users mailing list

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 07-11-2010, 08:42 AM
Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
 
Default My next Workstation

very nice.

thank you so much Liam.

f(t)

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Liam Proven <lproven@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 July 2010 17:55, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail

<francisco.diaztrepat@gmail.com> wrote:

> JAJAJAJAJAJA

>

> ROFLMAO@HINT



:¬) Glad to provide some amusement.



> I know Liam, thanks for your thorough reply.

>

> It is exactly my point. To get a 2007 middle-high end workstation. jajaja I

> am so glad I didn't say what I was using know. :-)

>

> Listen, I used to live in the US, also Barcelona, where I earned in the same

> Units of the computer prices. Now I live in Buenos Aires, I earned in Xs/4

> so I really can't afford + I don't need so much hardware.



So you're shopping in Pesos? 1 Ar$ ~= 25¢ in US$ as far as I know.

US$600 = UK£400, roughly, so in my currency, the budget is around

£400.



The current issue of UK magazine Custom PC (for which I used to write

the /Inside Linux/ column) has a feature on building a "futureproof"

upgradable PC for £400. Now, they are focusing on games, not

CPU-intensive stuff, but still, the components are radically different

from what you are looking at.



http://www.bit-tech.net/latestissue/



More details here:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=16903635



There are several specs there you could reach for around this money.

Of course you don't really need to buy a new case - you could reuse

any old ATX one, possibly including optical drive or even floppy, and

you don't need Windows, being a Linux user.



I would advise looking at a /modern/ machine if you're going to build

it yourself. Far more room for upgrades then.



If you want a sealed box, ready-made, then good specs are available

here in the UK for that money. I don't know about Argentina but I

would guess some similar end-of-line/bankrupt-stock vendors might well

exist there too.



This is a good spec for the money, for example:

http://www.sterlingxs.co.uk/scpages/cheapdellinspironminitowers545.html



Or for a bit more this:

http://www.sterlingxs.co.uk/scpages/cheapdellinspironminitowers560.htm



Here is another example from a different company:

http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=6137&CategoryID=407&SubCatego ryID=507






--

Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven

Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com

Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419

AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven

MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508



--

ubuntu-users mailing list

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 07-11-2010, 03:07 PM
Dotan Cohen
 
Default My next Workstation

On 11 July 2010 11:30, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
<francisco.diaztrepat@gmail.com> wrote:
> wow I didn't know that.
>
> Surely I'll compile everything to processor specific.
>

I don't know if you are joking, but don't bother. The difference is
minuscule, you won't notice it.


--
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org