Hi,
I am about to make a Linux Dual Core system.
Did anyone of you tested with SuSE OSS or with the more server-like CentOS
distribution?
(e-mail address removed) sez:
Not much choice: we have to run a binary-only app on the backend,
and the only x86 binary available is Linux. I'm getting the authors
to build a x86 Solaris version, in the meantime, Linux it is. AMDs
are not that well supported by 2.4 kernels, so it should to be a
2.6-based distro. We've been using dead rat since 6.2 and I haven't
seen anything that would objectively prove FC worse (or better)
than any other 2.6-based distro.
How many distros did you tried?
It is really important to know this detail.
And apart from the tcp drops did you tried any up-date to patch.
I have not seen any coments on that on the net.
I am starting to became concerned abou it ...
(I use FC4 on my main development machine, but even if that
machine has uptime in months [yup, months] I wouldn't use
FC4 for a production system)
dmaziuk@yellowtail:~% uname -a
Linux yellowtail.bmrb.wisc.edu 2.6.11-1.27_FC3 #1 Tue May 17 \
20:27:37 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
dmaziuk@yellowtail:~% uptime
18:38:48 up 207 days, 2:03, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.07
(I'd bump it to 4, but then I'd lose the uptime.)
Seriously, though, the problem is SMP, AMD, or both. Linux has been
stable enough for production use on single Intel chips for years.
If you notice the Open source only version in Suse Linux site:
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tip/16015.html
One can compare with the"full" version:
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxpackages/professional/index.html
and see that some packages for smp are not present.
I am not sure if the x86_64 is really equivalent as the i586
packages mentioned on the page.
But if it is the OSS version lacks the following packages that can make
the diference ...
kernel-bigsmp-nongpl-2.6.13-15.i586.rpm
kernel-default-nongpl-2.6.1 3-15.i586.rpm
kernel-smp-nongpl-2.6.13-15.i586.rpm
kernel-um-nongpl-2 .6.13-15.i586.rpm
kernel-xen-nongpl-2.6.13-15.i586.rpm (this one is just for xen
installations)
Not to mention that aparently the JVM is not 1.5 the one suposely
"optimized" for 64 bit and Dual Core.
It is missing:
java-1_4_2-gcj-compat-1.4.2.0-9.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-g cj-compat-devel-1.4.2.0-9.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-alsa-1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-demo-1.4.2.06-5. i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-devel-1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-jdbc -1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1_4_2-sun-plugin-1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1 _4_2-sun-src-1.4.2.06-5.i586.rpm
java-1_5_0-sun-1.5.0_03-2.i586.rpm
j ava-1_5_0-sun-alsa-1.5.0_03-2.i586.rpm
java-1_5_0-sun-demo-1.5.0_03-2.i5 86.rpm
java-1_5_0-sun-devel-1.5.0_03-2.i586.rpm
java-1_5_0-sun-jdbc-1 .5.0_03-2.i586.rpm
java-1_5_0-sun-plugin-1.5.0_03-2.i586.rpm
I did not check FC but I suspect FC4 might have the same sort of problems ...
Regards,
Pedro