|
FreeBSD General Other questions regarding FreeBSD which do not fit in any of the categories below. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
What's all this power for ?
Hey,
I am quite new to the freebsd business so sorry for this stupid question. But I am just reading the hardware thread and I am wondering what is all this power for. As far as I know FreeBSD it runs faster on a 1 Ghz P3 than Windows on a 3 Ghz P4. But what are you looking for ? I for my needs am a web developer so the only thing my machine needs to do is processing my code editor, maybe emulate a webserver (so it is divided from the main systme) and do some general stuff, fetching mails maybe write some text but that is not a lot of work to do. There is no video processing no 3d rendering nothing (no gaming on a workstation) so what do I need these fast processors for ? I am just wondering about those hardware notes, nearly all dual core, what for ? Ok I have a dual core at the moment as well and it is quite nice but for general work I never reach 25 % so why not buy a processor that is about a quarter of what I have at the moment ? sure compiling would be slower, but to be honest I do not compile all the time ... To make a long story short ? Do you think I would be fine with a 1,5 Ghz processor for a mobile web development ! add about 1 GB and a 80 Gb harddisc enough ? I am just wondering as I can not imagine what to use these power for ... So what are you doing with all your high powered computer ? Regrades Snoop1990 |
|
|||
Quote:
Are there any special requirements to play a dvd or hdtv movie ? system requirements ? Thanks for fast reply ! |
|
|||
1.5 should do just fine. I've got very reasonable performance out of my 450Mhz box. It even boots three times faster than my fathers all new *bling* 64 bit dual core machine that still runs the OS that the vendor supplied it with under the pretense of customer satisfaction. I do recommend reading the hardware compatibility list though.
As for all this heavy machinery these people have, I can say that multi tasking gets addictive. Ya know? It's not that you're compiling and watching movies at the same time /all the time/... it's just good to be able to if you want it I wouldn't know about HDTV, but for watching DVD's 1.5 should do nicely. Quote:
|
|
|||
Does anyone remember the HP Jornada? For a couple years I did nearly all my on-the-fly computing with a model 728. More recently I was investigating sustainability practices in computing and managed to put together a Pico-ITX machine that has a 1 GHz, 1 GB DDR2-533 and uses 90 watts. The Jornada runs NetBSD though.
|
|
||||
If all you are doing is using a text editor, running a web server for testing, and don't need flashy GUIs with tonnes of eye-candy effects, then a 1 to 2 GHz CPU with around 1 GB of RAM and and 80-ish GB HD is plenty.
The more horsepower you have, the more tricks you can do. But that doesn't mean you need it. |
|
||||
All that power comes in handy for multitasking. I've developed a bad habit of just taking a break from something, and leaving that application running while I do something else. Any Unix operating system has superb multitasking, but the hardware makes a difference. Normally, I'll have some maintenance operation going on in the background, a couple of torrents downloading, vim open for writing scripts or some other code, and a video running in mplayer or music playing in the background via mpd. It does take up a lot of resources. Both my Mac and my desktop/server suffer the same torture. All that power goes into making sure there are enough resources to do all of this.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE) |
|
||||
The hardware you need is all dependent upon what you need it for. If you had to live through Firefoxes download day, a blazing fast daemon might be good -- for the rest of us almost anything that runs works.
P3 500Mhz, 384MB RAM included 8MB shared with gfx, and an 8GB disk served me as a desktop running PC-BSD (FreeBSD 6, KDE 3.4) running such monsters as OpenOffice, MPlayer, and Mozilla. The more you have the better, especially if you don't like to wait on application start time! For most people anything comparable to a P4 2.2-2.4Ghz, 1024MB RAM, and enough graphics memory/disk space for your needs will serve anyone until half way through the next decade as a 'comfortable' desktop machine, unless you live with Redmonds pacman development pattern. the mental checklist I have is some thing like: GNU/Linux -- A CPU compatible with your kernel build, enough RAM to boot the kernel, run init, and bash, a display, couple hundred megs of HDD. (various between kernel builds and distro bloat) MS-DOS (later releases) -> Intel X86 CPU, 0.5-1MB of RAM, 4MB of HDD. Windows XP -- 2000Mhz i686 CPU, 768MB Memory, 1.8GB+Personal space for HDD, any VESA capable graphics card (8MB is enough video memory) Windows Vista (a real version) -- 2000Mhz i686 CPU, 2048MB Memory, GeForce 4400 or better graphics card, and since I've never used it 15~40GB + Personal space for HDD judging by their system requirements FreeBSD 33Mhz Intel 80486DX, 128MB of RAM (less with older kernels), serial port or suitable display device, 1GB disk+Personal space, ports, src on HDD. NetBSD a functioning power supply, serial port, and bootale media ;-) OpenBSD (i386) Intel 80486DX, 32-64MB of RAM, 900MB of disk space, serial port or suitable display medium. and you more or less have a functioning system, pardoning hardware support issues.
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
|||
Thank you very much all of you !
So you all agree that for my needs as described above it is enough to have what I explained ! Thank you for advice. Regrades Snoop1990 |
|
|||
Quote:
Me? I have a 2.66GHz Pentium D running at 3.4GHz on water cooling, 4gb of ram, and a 8600GTS graphics card, 73 GB Raptor What do I do with it? I play doom 3. I also compile everything from source, even kde, openoffice, firefox, etc. Often times multiple things compiling so long as they don't try to compile the same dependency. It is really nice to not have to wait for your system. To click things and bam they are open. To have 25 different windows/applications open and still have no slow downs. Somthing I didn't know I needed until I had it. Now anything less that 2gb of ram on my workstations and I get cranky. My servers on the other hand, 500mhz Sparc IIi with 1GB of ram, 233 MHz Pentium MMX 192mb ram, and both of them are lazy, doing next to nothing in terms of CPU. So I really don't need anything faster there. This is my *GASP* Windows XP machine also, that I use for gaming, more specifically Guitar Hero III. Believe it or not, my computer is just BARELY fast enough to play GHIII without lag, it lags once in a while but nothing unacceptable. It used to lag really bad until they release the latest patch. |
|
|||
I've been hesitant to upgrade my computer's RAM thinking that 2GB of 4-4-4-12 DDR2 800 ought to be overkill anyway. Tad, did you go from 2GB with your install or, did you install from your initial 4GB?
My setup (Just the important stuff): AMD Athlon64 X2 Black Edition 5000+ (OC at 3.0Ghz/1.375V), L2 is slower than Windsor's. 2x1GB shika DDR2 800@4-4-4-12 w/1.8V Seagate Barracuda 320GB 7200.10 Asus M2N-E nForce 570 Ultra chipset Asus GeForce EN7600GT Running Gnome/FreeBSD7.0/Compiz-Fusion. Why have this power? Multi-tasking like the others have mentioned. Multi-tasking and the quick switching of Gnome spaces rocks the planet with productivity! As an aside, can KDE switch spaces like Gnome? (ie, Ctrl+Alt+Arrow). Thanks. |
|
|||
Installed Initial 4 GB, I would say add it in a heart beat, it shouldn't hurt anything. I never use my swap at all and usually have 20+ windows open. (ADD a little?) Only 3.5GB registered but was expected.
|
|
|||
Quote:
This applies only if you use the 32 bit version of course. |
|
|||
I use nVidia driver and have changed nothing in the bios, no issues. Maybe only applies to integrated?
|
|
|||
Quote:
I ran into this on a P35/8500/4GB board, and it has been reproduced by many others with other video cards. Works fine with 2GB (or 3GB). There is no reason why this should be chipset dependent, though of course the BIOS settings and their defaults can be. |
|
|||
The power of your machine all depends on what your needs are, my workstation is dual core E8400 3ghz which is also overclocked, all software is compiled from source, i use Virutalbox to run and test other OS, i also have to process my raw images for photography. I have 4gb ram but will be updating this to 8gb mainly for virutalbox and raw processing.
|
|
||||
Quote:
I for example interest in virtualization (Xen/QEMU/VirtualBox) which you cannot do on some old P3, you need some horsepower 2-4 cores expesially for Xen and (propably more important) extensions that are avialable only in new CPUs, like Intel VT or AMD V to make hypervisor work. If you do much stuff on your box, like graphics in GIMP and Inkscape its pain to do that even on dual Athlon XP 1.6GHz, I have had such system and I can tell you that now I can breath and just do my job instead of watching the progress bar. 3D may not be that useful on the workstation at the first place, but processing windows/screen content CAN and SHOULD be graphics accelrated, not Compiz or other 3D candy stuff, RAW graphics, toolkits like GTK, all the 2D math should be accelrated by drivers for GFX card, unfortunelly FreeBSD does not cope very well here, even on open source Intel graphics. You can check gtkperf bemchmark to see the diffrence between vesa and accelrated GFX driver. Also if you do many things at a time with some tasks in backgound dual core or just old plain SMP with dual P2/P3 or even SPARC system makes a lot of sense, much better comfort for the work. Also (Open)Solaris likes memory and horsepower much more then FreeBSD which I recently ofter use.. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind "If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”. vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd |
|
|||
Hello,
Quote:
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14) |
|
|||
This article brings up some of the operating environments that are getting on board the sustainability bandwagon.
I've experimented with different ways of achieving "green" compliance in our data center and the primary means of cutting down on power as I've seen it has been in reducing machines and employing virtualization. CPU throttling during off-peak times, when we usually perform backups and do automated maintenance, meant that the machines took longer to perform those tasks before idling down again. I've had good luck with vendors like Dell and CoolerMaster that have some PSUs that rate above 80% efficiency. There's a list of efficient PSUs at www.80plus.org/manu/psu/psu_join.aspx. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rebuilding RAIDframe mirror after crash/power failure | sherekhan | OpenBSD Installation and Upgrading | 7 | 25th September 2009 10:06 PM |
FreeBSD ACPI Power Management, 7.2-release | Mantazz | FreeBSD Ports and Packages | 4 | 17th August 2009 09:08 PM |
Fighting for the power | vermaden | FreeBSD General | 0 | 5th May 2009 06:49 AM |
init: can't exec getty after power failure | mtx | FreeBSD General | 0 | 20th January 2009 10:14 AM |
Power button - nicely switch down the computer? | Malinda | OpenBSD General | 5 | 14th June 2008 01:57 PM |