Processeur Atom ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Kevin Chadwick-2
> I can also show you PIII systems that draw more than 300W, and I
> discarded one a while ago that probably could have maxed out at well
> over 500w.
>

I was shocked to find my nforce board draws around 130 watts, when
it's switched OFF!!!!!!! and with the new graphics card can push upto
700 watts

And No, I'm not kidding

Needless to say, I now have a multitap with switch on my desk as the
power button.

p.s. People should be aware that, ARM and atom have met similar ground
for speed but they are like risc chips and usually a 500mhz does half
the work of a full/non emulated instruction set chip also at 500mhz.

Check out atom on wikipedia for more info.

Risc chips in phones etc. do even less work per cycle.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

E.T-3
Hence the question of having a powerful processor?

One Debian turns with a facility has gnC)nC)rique 800mhz, good work.
Processor mult-core 3.00ghz not utility for firewall and desktop.


On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:44:37 +0100, Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>> I can also show you PIII systems that draw more than 300W, and I
>> discarded one a while ago that probably could have maxed out at well
>> over 500w.
>>
>
> I was shocked to find my nforce board draws around 130 watts, when
> it's switched OFF!!!!!!! and with the new graphics card can push upto
> 700 watts
>
> And No, I'm not kidding
>
> Needless to say, I now have a multitap with switch on my desk as the
> power button.
>
> p.s. People should be aware that, ARM and atom have met similar ground
> for speed but they are like risc chips and usually a 500mhz does half
> the work of a full/non emulated instruction set chip also at 500mhz.
>
> Check out atom on wikipedia for more info.
>
> Risc chips in phones etc. do even less work per cycle.

--
@plus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Kevin Chadwick-2
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:08:28 +0200
"E.T" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hence the question of having a powerful processor?
>
> One Debian turns with a facility has gnC)nC)rique 800mhz, good work.
> Processor mult-core 3.00ghz not utility for firewall and desktop.
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:44:37 +0100, Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> I can also show you PIII systems that draw more than 300W, and I
> >> discarded one a while ago that probably could have maxed out at well
> >> over 500w.
> >>
> >
> > I was shocked to find my nforce board draws around 130 watts, when
> > it's switched OFF!!!!!!! and with the new graphics card can push upto
> > 700 watts
> >
> > And No, I'm not kidding
> >
> > Needless to say, I now have a multitap with switch on my desk as the
> > power button.
> >
> > p.s. People should be aware that, ARM and atom have met similar ground
> > for speed but they are like risc chips and usually a 500mhz does half
> > the work of a full/non emulated instruction set chip also at 500mhz.
> >
> > Check out atom on wikipedia for more info.
> >
> > Risc chips in phones etc. do even less work per cycle.
>
> --
> @plus
>

You make me extra thankful that my native langage is english. Watch
some DVDs and switch the english subtitles on, though I'm not sure
that will help with order and grammar.

I'm not sure if I understand you but PF is so lean that if you got it
running on a phone it would handle a rediculous amount of traffic. I
believe the faq or somewhere says a p90 and 32mb of ram will handle most
situations as a pure firewall.

I Just mentioned it for comparison sakes and because it's annoying when
people say they have a 10 year old pc in their hand, when it's not even
close (bus, memory, bridges etc.).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

E.T-3
Sorry, my english is very bad ...

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:47:08 +0100, Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:08:28 +0200
> "E.T" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hence the question of having a powerful processor?
>>
>> One Debian turns with a facility has gnC)nC)rique 800mhz, good work.
>> Processor mult-core 3.00ghz not utility for firewall and desktop.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:44:37 +0100, Kevin Chadwick
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> I can also show you PIII systems that draw more than 300W, and I
>> >> discarded one a while ago that probably could have maxed out at well
>> >> over 500w.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was shocked to find my nforce board draws around 130 watts, when
>> > it's switched OFF!!!!!!! and with the new graphics card can push upto
>> > 700 watts
>> >
>> > And No, I'm not kidding
>> >
>> > Needless to say, I now have a multitap with switch on my desk as the
>> > power button.
>> >
>> > p.s. People should be aware that, ARM and atom have met similar
ground

>> > for speed but they are like risc chips and usually a 500mhz does half
>> > the work of a full/non emulated instruction set chip also at 500mhz.
>> >
>> > Check out atom on wikipedia for more info.
>> >
>> > Risc chips in phones etc. do even less work per cycle.
>>
>> --
>> @plus
>>
>
> You make me extra thankful that my native langage is english. Watch
> some DVDs and switch the english subtitles on, though I'm not sure
> that will help with order and grammar.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand you but PF is so lean that if you got it
> running on a phone it would handle a rediculous amount of traffic. I
> believe the faq or somewhere says a p90 and 32mb of ram will handle most
> situations as a pure firewall.
>
> I Just mentioned it for comparison sakes and because it's annoying when
> people say they have a 10 year old pc in their hand, when it's not even
> close (bus, memory, bridges etc.).

--
@plus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

mehma sarja
In reply to this post by E.T-3
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:20:52 -0700, Andreas Gerdd <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Learn English, buddy. This is an English-only mailing list.
> You're disturbing.
It is? I learn something new everyday.

Mehma

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Martin Schröder
In reply to this post by E.T-3
2010/6/12 E.T <[hidden email]>:
> mother card PIII, is compatible: usb2, usb3, e-sata, sata2, sata3,
> firewire800, raid0, raid1, raid6

No. I seriously doubt that you will get usb3 or sata2 adapters (PCI?)
for PIII systems. And even if you get them, they don't make sense.
Even new Intel systems have problems with usb3 performance...

And I'd love to see your face when your PIII system rebuilds your
10TB RAID6 array... :-)

Best
   Martin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Leonardo Carneiro - Veltrac
Sure thing!


On 06/16/2010 05:28 PM, Martin Schrvder wrote:
> 2010/6/12 E.T<[hidden email]>:
>    
>> mother card PIII, is compatible: usb2, usb3, e-sata, sata2, sata3,
>> firewire800, raid0, raid1, raid6
>>      
> ...
>
> And I'd love to see your face when your PIII system rebuilds your
> 10TB RAID6 array... :-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Kevin Chadwick-2
In reply to this post by Martin Schröder
> No. I seriously doubt that you will get usb3 or sata2 adapters (PCI?)
> for PIII systems. And even if you get them, they don't make sense.
> Even new Intel systems have problems with usb3 performance...

>

I heard intel have postponed usb3 for atleast 6 months too.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Martin Schröder
2010/6/16 Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>:
> I heard intel have postponed usb3 for atleast 6 months too.

Even worse: Their PCIe is too slow for usb3.

Best
   Martin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Kevin Chadwick-2
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:30:58 +0200
Martin SchrC6der <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2010/6/16 Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>:
> > I heard intel have postponed usb3 for atleast 6 months too.
>
> Even worse: Their PCIe is too slow for usb3.
>
> Best
>    Martin
>

Maybe if you're using lots of usb3s and a 16x graphics card etc, you may
run out of bandwidth, but I heard the real reason is intel have some
intermediary chips halfway between usb2 and 3 that need to be sold.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Leonardo Carneiro - Veltrac
On 06/17/2010 09:57 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:30:58 +0200
> Martin SchrC6der<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> 2010/6/16 Kevin Chadwick<[hidden email]>:
>>      
>>> I heard intel have postponed usb3 for atleast 6 months too.
>>>        
>> Even worse: Their PCIe is too slow for usb3.
>>
>> Best
>>     Martin
>>
>>      
> Maybe if you're using lots of usb3s and a 16x graphics card etc, you may
> run out of bandwidth, but I heard the real reason is intel have some
> intermediary chips halfway between usb2 and 3 that need to be sold.
>    
PCI-E has independent bandwidth for each lane, so you can use a full
blow 16x graphics and your 4x slot will not be affected. The only
exception is those mobos that have a 2 16x slots that actually runs in
8x when both are in use.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Kevin Chadwick-2
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:44:40 -0300
Leonardo Carneiro - Veltrac <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06/17/2010 09:57 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:30:58 +0200
> > Martin SchrC6der<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >
> >    
> >> 2010/6/16 Kevin Chadwick<[hidden email]>:
> >>      
> >>> I heard intel have postponed usb3 for atleast 6 months too.
> >>>        
> >> Even worse: Their PCIe is too slow for usb3.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>     Martin
> >>
> >>      
> > Maybe if you're using lots of usb3s and a 16x graphics card etc, you may
> > run out of bandwidth, but I heard the real reason is intel have some
> > intermediary chips halfway between usb2 and 3 that need to be sold.
> >    
> PCI-E has independent bandwidth for each lane, so you can use a full
> blow 16x graphics and your 4x slot will not be affected. The only
> exception is those mobos that have a 2 16x slots that actually runs in
> 8x when both are in use.
>

A 16x graphics card uses 16 lanes and a 4x pci uses four but
eventually you MAY? saturate your superio chip. Intel may be switching
to something more like amd or have heat issues on the superio but I
doubt that. You would saturate it quicker on an atom however but then
it supports less ports.

PCI-E is certainly not the bottleneck. I would be far more
likely to believe the want to sell intermediary chips.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Martin Schröder
In reply to this post by Kevin Chadwick-2
2010/6/17 Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]>:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:30:58 +0200
> Martin Schrvder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Even worse: Their PCIe is too slow for usb3.
>
> Maybe if you're using lots of usb3s and a 16x graphics card etc, you may
> run out of bandwidth, but I heard the real reason is intel have some
> intermediary chips halfway between usb2 and 3 that need to be sold.

No. Their chipsets give a 16 PCIe 2 lanes and 4 PICe 1.1 lanes, so you
have a 16x2 PCIe slot for the gfx card and a 4x1.1 PCIe slot (or 4
1x1.1 PCIe slots). USB 3 is faster 1x1.1 PICe, so you need a 4xPICe
USB3 card. Most USB3 cards are 1xPICe, though.

If you need USB 3, get an AMD board. All PCIe lanes are 2.0

Best
   Martin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by E.T-3
* E.T <[hidden email]> [2010-06-12 10:56]:
> why pay 100dollars/month, 1200dollars/yaer for a server ???.

because you get what you pay for.

maintaining a sane & secure & reliable data center isn't exactly
cheap.

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by Tomas Bodzar-4
* Tomas Bodzar <[hidden email]> [2010-06-12 11:55]:
> See tables with consumption
> http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Intel_Mobile_Pentium_III-M (especially
> ultra-low-voltage models). And it's far more powerful then Atom.

looking at my PIII-based (yes, kinda the last ones,
onethousandtwohundredsomething mhz) storage machines and my atom
systems, the "more powerful" is obvious bullshit. atom performs quite
well.

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

E.T-3
In reply to this post by Henning Brauer
Yes

Small webiste personal = server at home

big project = datacenter

We agree


>> why pay 100dollars/month, 1200dollars/yaer for a server ???.
>
> because you get what you pay for.
>
> maintaining a sane & secure & reliable data center isn't exactly
> cheap.

--
@plus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
* Nick <[hidden email]> [2010-06-13 18:43]:
> >> that might be (I am not convinced tho) with the electricity price in
> >> the US, but certainly isn't universal.
>
> The calculations are.

$/kWh isn't...

> Cost of money (i.e., interest rate), watts saved (if any), cost of a
> kWh, initial costs, etc.  Plug in your numbers, find out what the ROI
> is.  Add in what your AC costs are (watts in have to be removed, and
> that's more watts to pump them out).  Evaluate results.
>
> Going simpler, ignoring cost of money, IF your Atom machine draws 50%
> of the power of my PIII, my quickie calc indicates you will save
> 105kWh.  If you also have to pay for AC, maybe double that number.

should be less than 50% actually, at much better performance. the
atoms are surprisingly fast.

> Granted, ROI (Return on Investment) isn't everything.

i would not even remotely consider putting a PIII-era machine into
service now. the cost of the hardware (in the case of smallish
systems) is irrelevant in the big picture.
PIII: old, rusty, reliability questionable, draws more power, adding up
-> might have to invest in bigger A/C sooner
atom: new, reliability way less questionable, has modern interfaces,
saves power, is so cool that it'll survive forever even with all fans
dead, way faster.
heck, the supermicro atoms i buy aren't even cheap. not at all. but
with server-class management, very low power consumption etc, they pay
out quickly. they even would if they cost twice as much, easily.

admittedly, the math is different for home hobby use.

> Low power rack mount equipment is hard to find now

huh? it is easier than ever.

> analog clamp-on ammeter at the time, but they appeared to draw under 60W.

pretty sure my average for new smallish (you know, 1U, reaosnable
amount of ram, 1 disk, that style) machines is below that. not idle,
but with typical workload.

> If you want to talk about "power savings", get a wattmeter and quit
> reading glossy sheets of one tiny part of the entire computer system.

err, besides a stupid useless wattmeter I have dozens, if not hundreds,
of points in my power distribution infratructure where power draw is
measured. live, not artificial test runs.


> The numbers will surprise you.  (Fans ALONE on one Dell 1U system
> draw over 50W at full speed.  Hopefully, they aren't at full speed
> very often.

either your measurement is screwed or dell screwed up big time.

> My PIII system will pump a LOT of data.

and still lose compared to a reasonable atom.

and for giggles, the dmesg. i forgot the exact power draw of that
system, it was very very low.

OpenBSD 4.7 (GENERIC.MP) #0: Mon Apr  5 08:50:54 CEST 2010
    [hidden email]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP
cpu0: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1.61 GHz
cpu0: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,TM2,CX16,xTPR
real mem  = 2145595392 (2046MB)
avail mem = 2070142976 (1974MB)
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0: AT/286+ BIOS, date 05/05/09, BIOS32 rev. 0 @ 0xf0010, SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0xfd160 (27 entries)
bios0: vendor American Megatrends Inc. version "1.0" date 05/05/2009
bios0: Supermicro X7SLA
acpi0 at bios0: rev 2
acpi0: tables DSDT FACP APIC MCFG OEMB HPET
acpi0: wakeup devices P0P2(S4) P0P1(S4) PS2K(S4) PS2M(S4) EUSB(S4) MC97(S4) P0P4(S4) P0P5(S4) P0P6(S4) P0P7(S4) P0P8(S4) LAN0(S1) P0P9(S4) LAN1(S1) USB0(S4) USB1(S4) USB2(S4) USB3(S4) SLPB(S4)
acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits
acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee00000: PC-AT compat
cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: apic clock running at 133MHz
cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor)
cpu1: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1.61 GHz
cpu1: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,TM2,CX16,xTPR
cpu2 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor)
cpu2: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1.61 GHz
cpu2: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,TM2,CX16,xTPR
cpu3 at mainbus0: apid 3 (application processor)
cpu3: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1.61 GHz
cpu3: FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,TM2,CX16,xTPR
ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 4 pa 0xfec00000, version 20, 24 pins
ioapic0: misconfigured as apic 1, remapped to apid 4
acpihpet0 at acpi0: 14318179 Hz
acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0)
acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P2)
acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus 4 (P0P1)
acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 1 (P0P4)
acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P5)
acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P6)
acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus -1 (P0P7)
acpiprt7 at acpi0: bus 2 (P0P8)
acpiprt8 at acpi0: bus 3 (P0P9)
acpicpu0 at acpi0
acpicpu1 at acpi0
acpicpu2 at acpi0
acpicpu3 at acpi0
acpibtn0 at acpi0: SLPB
acpibtn1 at acpi0: PWRB
bios0: ROM list: 0xc0000/0xaa00!
pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0: configuration mode 1 (bios)
pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 82945G Host" rev 0x02
vga1 at pci0 dev 2 function 0 "Intel 82945G Video" rev 0x02
wsdisplay0 at vga1 mux 1: console (80x25, vt100 emulation)
wsdisplay0: screen 1-5 added (80x25, vt100 emulation)
intagp0 at vga1
agp0 at intagp0: aperture at 0xe0000000, size 0x10000000
inteldrm0 at vga1: apic 4 int 16 (irq 10)
drm0 at inteldrm0
ppb0 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 "Intel 82801GB PCIE" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 16 (irq 10)
pci1 at ppb0 bus 1
ppb1 at pci0 dev 28 function 4 "Intel 82801G PCIE" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 16 (irq 10)
pci2 at ppb1 bus 2
re0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 "Realtek 8168" rev 0x02: RTL8168C/8111C (0x3c00), apic 4 int 16 (irq 10), address 00:30:48:db:03:f2
rgephy0 at re0 phy 7: RTL8169S/8110S PHY, rev. 2
ppb2 at pci0 dev 28 function 5 "Intel 82801G PCIE" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 17 (irq 11)
pci3 at ppb2 bus 3
re1 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 "Realtek 8168" rev 0x02: RTL8168C/8111C (0x3c00), apic 4 int 17 (irq 11), address 00:30:48:db:03:f2
rgephy1 at re1 phy 7: RTL8169S/8110S PHY, rev. 2
uhci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 "Intel 82801GB USB" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 23 (irq 5)
uhci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 "Intel 82801GB USB" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 19 (irq 7)
uhci2 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 "Intel 82801GB USB" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 18 (irq 6)
uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 3 "Intel 82801GB USB" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 16 (irq 10)
ehci0 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 "Intel 82801GB USB" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 23 (irq 5)
usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0
uhub0 at usb0 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1
ppb3 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 "Intel 82801BA Hub-to-PCI" rev 0xe1
pci4 at ppb3 bus 4
cbb0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Ricoh 5C475 CardBus" rev 0x81: apic 4 int 20 (irq 10)
cardslot0 at cbb0 slot 0 flags 0
cardbus0 at cardslot0: bus 5 device 0 cacheline 0x0, lattimer 0x40
pcmcia0 at cardslot0
ichpcib0 at pci0 dev 31 function 0 "Intel 82801GB LPC" rev 0x01: PM disabled
pciide0 at pci0 dev 31 function 1 "Intel 82801GB IDE" rev 0x01: DMA, channel 0 configured to compatibility, channel 1 configured to compatibility
pciide0: channel 0 disabled (no drives)
pciide0: channel 1 disabled (no drives)
ahci0 at pci0 dev 31 function 2 "Intel 82801GR AHCI" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 19 (irq 7), AHCI 1.1
scsibus0 at ahci0: 32 targets
sd0 at scsibus0 targ 0 lun 0: <ATA, SAMSUNG MMCRE64G, VBM1> SCSI3 0/direct fixed
sd0: 61057MB, 512 bytes/sec, 125045424 sec total
ichiic0 at pci0 dev 31 function 3 "Intel 82801GB SMBus" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 19 (irq 7)
iic0 at ichiic0
lm1 at iic0 addr 0x2d: W83627DHG
spdmem0 at iic0 addr 0x50: 1GB DDR2 SDRAM non-parity PC2-5300CL5
spdmem1 at iic0 addr 0x52: 1GB DDR2 SDRAM non-parity PC2-5300CL5
usb1 at uhci0: USB revision 1.0
uhub1 at usb1 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb2 at uhci1: USB revision 1.0
uhub2 at usb2 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb3 at uhci2: USB revision 1.0
uhub3 at usb3 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
usb4 at uhci3: USB revision 1.0
uhub4 at usb4 "Intel UHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1
isa0 at ichpcib0
isadma0 at isa0
com0 at isa0 port 0x3f8/8 irq 4: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
com1 at isa0 port 0x2f8/8 irq 3: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
pckbc0 at isa0 port 0x60/5
pcppi0 at isa0 port 0x61
midi0 at pcppi0: <PC speaker>
spkr0 at pcppi0
lm0 at isa0 port 0x290/8: W83627DHG
lm1 detached
npx0 at isa0 port 0xf0/16: reported by CPUID; using exception 16
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support
vscsi0 at root
scsibus1 at vscsi0: 256 targets
softraid0 at root
root on sd0a swap on sd0b dump on sd0b
ohci0 at cardbus0 dev 0 function 0 "Opti 82C861" rev 0x10: irq 268702730, version 1.0, legacy support
usb5 at ohci0: USB revision 1.0
uhub5 at usb5 "Opti OHCI root hub" rev 1.00/1.00 addr 1

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
* Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> [2010-06-12 23:59]:

> On 2010-06-12, Henning Brauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > * Nick <[hidden email]> [2010-06-11 12:55]:
> >> If you want low power consumption and low cost, I'd suggest a small
> >> PIII or Celeron based system, hard to beat for the price (usually,
> >> free!).  IF the new, cool stuff has any real power savings, you are
> >> unlikely to ever recoup the initial cost over recycled hardware.
> >
> > that might be (I am not convinced tho) with the electricity price in
> > the US, but certainly isn't universal.
> >
>
> Especially the price of electricity in externally owned datacentres (*)
> - and restrictions on current drawn; there are still places which allow
> just 4A (@240V) per rack footprint (and 8A/footprint is fairly common).

I know of one DC that limits you to 8A per rack (@230V) because the
floor would collapse if people filled up their racks...

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

STeve Andre'
In reply to this post by Henning Brauer
Quoting Henning Brauer <[hidden email]>:

> * Nick <[hidden email]> [2010-06-13 18:43]:
>> >> that might be (I am not convinced tho) with the electricity price in
>> >> the US, but certainly isn't universal.
>>
>> The calculations are.
>
> $/kWh isn't...
>
>> Cost of money (i.e., interest rate), watts saved (if any), cost of a
>> kWh, initial costs, etc.  Plug in your numbers, find out what the ROI
>> is.  Add in what your AC costs are (watts in have to be removed, and
>> that's more watts to pump them out).  Evaluate results.
>>
>> Going simpler, ignoring cost of money, IF your Atom machine draws 50%
>> of the power of my PIII, my quickie calc indicates you will save
>> 105kWh.  If you also have to pay for AC, maybe double that number.
>
> should be less than 50% actually, at much better performance. the
> atoms are surprisingly fast.
>
>> Granted, ROI (Return on Investment) isn't everything.
>
> i would not even remotely consider putting a PIII-era machine into
> service now. the cost of the hardware (in the case of smallish
> systems) is irrelevant in the big picture.
> PIII: old, rusty, reliability questionable, draws more power, adding up
> -> might have to invest in bigger A/C sooner
> atom: new, reliability way less questionable, has modern interfaces,
> saves power, is so cool that it'll survive forever even with all fans
> dead, way faster.
> heck, the supermicro atoms i buy aren't even cheap. not at all. but
> with server-class management, very low power consumption etc, they pay
> out quickly. they even would if they cost twice as much, easily.
>
> admittedly, the math is different for home hobby use.
>
>> Low power rack mount equipment is hard to find now
>
> huh? it is easier than ever.
>
>> analog clamp-on ammeter at the time, but they appeared to draw under 60W.
>
> pretty sure my average for new smallish (you know, 1U, reaosnable
> amount of ram, 1 disk, that style) machines is below that. not idle,
> but with typical workload.
>
>> If you want to talk about "power savings", get a wattmeter and quit
>> reading glossy sheets of one tiny part of the entire computer system.
>
> err, besides a stupid useless wattmeter I have dozens, if not hundreds,
> of points in my power distribution infratructure where power draw is
> measured. live, not artificial test runs.
>
>
>> The numbers will surprise you.  (Fans ALONE on one Dell 1U system
>> draw over 50W at full speed.  Hopefully, they aren't at full speed
>> very often.
>
> either your measurement is screwed or dell screwed up big time.
>
>> My PIII system will pump a LOT of data.
>
> and still lose compared to a reasonable atom.
>
> and for giggles, the dmesg. i forgot the exact power draw of that
> system, it was very very low.
>
> OpenBSD 4.7 (GENERIC.MP) #0: Mon Apr  5 08:50:54 CEST 2010
>     [hidden email]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP
> cpu0: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU 330 @ 1.60GHz ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 1.61
GHz
> cpu0:

Just one comment on all this.  It is very rare for me to have a difference
of opinion with you Henning, but I have to comment on P3 equipment.

Dell made some incredible Optiplex models that were white, using P3's
from 450MHz to about 1.2Ghz.  I have several at work in production
service, and some of them are 10 years old.  The disks aren't, but the
machine proper is.  They draw more power than an Atom, thats for
certain, but they are rock solid, and built FAR better than most things
today.  Me, I'm the IT department where I work.  The calculus of spending
more on electricty for systems so stable that they are more likely to
die when the power dies is pretty obvious to me. ;-)

I've watched everything get bigger, faster and cheaper, but usually at
the cost of quality.  This includes my ThinkPads, sigh.  I've had several
conversations where it was admitted that fewer smoothig capicators
were used because a bean-counter saw they could save money by
using fewer.  Boards aren't cleaned any more--I have some great
fingerprint samples of several techs from China.

For applications were speed really matters my little Dell's lose.  But
in many respects they are the best servers I've ever had.

--STeve Andre'

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Processeur Atom ?

Henning Brauer
* [hidden email] <[hidden email]> [2010-06-23 01:34]:
> Dell made some incredible Optiplex models that were white, using P3's
> from 450MHz to about 1.2Ghz.  I have several at work in production
> service, and some of them are 10 years old.

heck, I have systems that old in production.
the point is - new setups using these just doesn't make sense.
heck, at the very same second where I had to change ANYTHING
hardware-wise on them, they get replaced. if they don't get replaced
anyway.

> The disks aren't, but the
> machine proper is.  They draw more power than an Atom, thats for
> certain, but they are rock solid, and built FAR better than most things
> today.  Me, I'm the IT department where I work.  The calculus of spending
> more on electricty for systems so stable that they are more likely to
> die when the power dies is pretty obvious to me. ;-)

as rock solid as they might be, at this age, the likeliness of them
dieing anytime soon is growing. fast.

> I've watched everything get bigger, faster and cheaper, but usually at
> the cost of quality.  This includes my ThinkPads, sigh.  I've had several
> conversations where it was admitted that fewer smoothig capicators
> were used because a bean-counter saw they could save money by
> using fewer.  Boards aren't cleaned any more--I have some great
> fingerprint samples of several techs from China.

quality is an issue. i can only say that i am very happy with pretty
much anything i ever got from supermicro. but then i don't buy the
newest and shiniest, ever.

--
Henning Brauer, [hidden email], [hidden email]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting

1234