Very Computer

I was wondering if anyone can comment on how well the PII works with
linux?  We are thinking about migrating up from standard P5 chips, and
get all new motherboards etc.

We are unsure whether to go the PII route or PPro, our core operating
system is Linux, so that has alot to do with it.  Does the PII have any
specific problems with Linux?

Any reasons I shouldn't go with a PII?

Brian

--

|Brian Feeny              | USR TC Hubs |ShreveNet Inc. (318)222-2638 |
|Systems Administrator    | Perl, Linux |Web hosting, online stores,  |
|ShreveNet Inc.           |  USR Pilot  |Dial-Up 14.4-56k, ISDN & LANs|
|89 CRX DX w/MPFI, lots of|-=*:Quake:*=-|http://www.shreve.net/       |
|mods/Homepage coming soon|LordSignal/SN|Quake server: 208.206.76.3   |
\------------------------318-222-2638 x109----------------------------/

Quote:>We are unsure whether to go the PII route or PPro, our core operating
>system is Linux, so that has alot to do with it.  Does the PII have any
>specific problems with Linux?

Also, the PII can only cache up to 512M of RAM.  So, if you need more than
512M of RAM, go PPro.

The other thing to note, is that Pro 180 chips are dirt cheap.  We just
upgraded a bunch of Penitum 120s to dual PPro 180s.  We considered PII, but
we felt this was way more "bang for the buck."

Later,
        Dale
--
+--------------------  finger for pgp public key  ---------------------+
| Dale E. Martin | University of Cincinnati Savant Research Laboratory |

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Quote:>Also, the PII can only cache up to 512M of RAM.  So, if you need more than
>512M of RAM, go PPro.

The cache problem is the TX Pentium chipset which cannot cache more
than 64MB.

Besides that, I believe that the quicker cache would be a performance
gain above the PII, because in a dual system cache performance is far
more important (with protocols to sync the internal caches of the
CPUs). I am only speculating here, I own a single P6-200.
Much cheaper ;-)

HTH,
Uli
--

Stormweg 24                | listening to: Cara-Lin (Thee Headcoatees),
24539 Neumuenster, Germany | It's the Sickening Sound (Doktor X)

   >We are unsure whether to go the PII route or PPro, our core operating
   >system is Linux, so that has alot to do with it.  Does the PII have any
   >specific problems with Linux?

   Nothing that I'm aware of; my computer is a PII and I haven't had any
   problems. Pentium II is basically a Pentium Pro with MMX and a higher clock
   speed, so unless you want to save a few bucks with a slower system that'll
   need upgrading sooner, go for the PII.

Well depends if you have more than 512MB Ram, if you do the PPro is the way to
go for now until a fixed PII is released.

Richard.

--

: >Also, the PII can only cache up to 512M of RAM.  So, if you need more than
: >512M of RAM, go PPro.
: Not the caching is the problem. The problem is that the PII *mirrors*
: adresses >512MB to 0. This is a sure system crash for _all_ OSes.
: The cache problem is the TX Pentium chipset which cannot cache more
: than 64MB.
: Besides that, I believe that the quicker cache would be a performance
: gain above the PII, because in a dual system cache performance is far
: more important (with protocols to sync the internal caches of the
: CPUs). I am only speculating here, I own a single P6-200.
: Much cheaper ;-)
Not only is it much cheaper , but the level 2 cache is on board the PPro which allows it to run at internal ( 200Mhz). While the PII has the cach on the printed circuit next to the processor, wich runs at a MUCH SLOWER 66Mhz, only the internal colck speed of the PII processor is higher.
: HTH,
: Uli
: --

: Stormweg 24                | listening to: Cara-Lin (Thee Headcoatees),
: 24539 Neumuenster, Germany | It's the Sickening Sound (Doktor X)

: >Also, the PII can only cache up to 512M of RAM.  So, if you need more than
: >512M of RAM, go PPro.

: Not the caching is the problem. The problem is that the PII *mirrors*
: adresses >512MB to 0. This is a sure system crash for _all_ OSes.

Actually, my understanding is that it is the cache that cause the problems.
It's the cache, not the chip, that wraps around.  if you disable the cache,
the system will run with >512MB, but this is rather academic since
disabling the cache makes the machine too slow to be useful.

eric

Uli
--

Stormweg 24                | listening to: Cara-Lin (Thee Headcoatees),
24539 Neumuenster, Germany | It's the Sickening Sound (Doktor X)

Quote:>so unless you want to save a few bucks with a slower system that'll
>need upgrading sooner, go for the PII.

Then look at the prices for the chips.  Its understandable why Intel
wanted to cripple P5 performance by releasing its trash TX chipset (no
ECC, no memory cache > 64MB) to "push" people to buy the PII, a more
expensive chip, even though the performance isn't significantly
greater.

The money you save on a P6 would be better spent on a fast SCSI
controller and hard drive that would outrun a PII in the typical mixed
application benchmark tests (under NT or Linux).  However, if your
interested in Windblows 95, then the PII is for you.

Just my 2cents.

Personally I feel that, it does not make too much sense to spend much
money on getting faster and better CPU chips.  Probably we should look
for better Motherboard, better scsi controller/disk, and of course
faster/more RAM:-)

I would rather get a PPro, then try to overclocking the BUS to 75Mhz.
There are some Motherboard(Socket 8) support this frequency.  But I
don't know what would happen if I switch it to 75MHz:-)  Actually I
don't want to overclock the CPU at all, probably will decrease the
multiplier while increase the MB speed.

Got a reply from this newsgroup(forget his name^_^) who says that all
PPro MB supports cachable memory up to 512Mb.  This is really a good
news.  I think 128MB should be more than enough for a home based linux
machine:-)

Enjoy, the great O/S, and the great machine you are going to
build/have:-)