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
07-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
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