PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?
I have pretensions of hacker status someday. ;-] They are selling a desktop with PC-BSD installed and configured. I'm thinking about buying their new Apollo rig, http://www.ixsystems.com/apollo and ask them to install some kind of virtual machine software on top of FreeBSD (or PC-BSD) so that I can learn various linux distros running as clients. Anyone know anything about them? Any thoughts or cautions about this approach? Thanks in advance for thoughts, reactions. PS - anyone programming Lisp, write me? Brian.McLinden@gmail.com
Brian McLinden wrote:
If you want to be a "hacker", wouldn't you want to buy a system and load the OS yourself and then set up VMs yourself? You won't get far if you don't know how to install the OS. It would probably be a good learning experience. Ryan Pugatch Systems Administrator, TripAdvisor
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 15:18:12 -0400 Brian McLinden <brian.mclinden@gmail.com> wrote:
To add on the previous reply: 1.) FreeBSD is great and I use it in many places, but their current offerings for hosting VMs are a little sparse. QEMU/KQEMU and older VMware versions work, but not much more. 8-CURRENT will run reliably as a domU in Xen, though, so progress is coming. Linux offers you VMware, Xen, KVM, VirtualBox, etc. 2.) You may want to consider saving some money and putting your own system together. They're pretty clearly reselling standard parts (the case is an Antec Sonata III with included 500W power supply, for instance), and unless you *really* need a Core i7 right now, there are a lot of bargains now on high end Core2 Quads and DDRII memory that will last you for a while. Brian Conway
Seconding Brian's idea. Build a computer: get a processor and motherboard, RAM, a PSU, a case, hard drive, maybe a vid card. This can be done for 400 or less if your needs aren't terribly big, or if you can reuse a hard drive or something. Then rather than running the various distros as virtual machines, install them in your newly-built computer. Make some extra 10 G partitions on the hard drive, then install a different OS in each partition, keeping your home directory containing your personal files as its own separate partition. Then you can test and compare Linux distros until you find the one that works best for you. There are people in WLUG who can help you through the build process or the installation process, if you should want a consult as you go along. Good luck, Liz J 2009/8/8 Brian Conway <bconway@alum.wpi.edu>
It has been ten years since I built a system and I figure I should do it again to refresh my skills. I took a look at motherboards and processor combinations and I was overwhelmed by the proliferation of choices. What I was wondering if I could get the members of the group to share the basic configuration of systems they have built to give me an idea of what I should look at. I want to build a compute/file server. I do a lot of heavy duty software development using the Eclipse IDE and the Java and C++ Development tools. Also, I need to store a lot of data - mostly images. My house is wired with a 1GB Ethernet so I have good bandwidth to access the server. Thank you for any help. -David
I have, built April 2009: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 Brisbane 2.9GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor - $64.99 ASUS M3A78-CM AM2+/AM2 AMD 780V Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - $74.99 Kingston 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - $44.99 Cooler Master Elite 335 RC-335-KKN1-GP Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - $49.99 Acer X193W+BD Black 19" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor Some SATA hard drive... don't know offhand. Some DVD drive, I forget, nothing spectacular. According to ASUS, this motherboard is a "Corporate Stable Model (CSM) for long-term availability." It has DVI and VGA output. Specs & reviews here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131330 Running on this PC, Debian Lenny (kernel 2.6.26-2-686 Bigmem). I have another PC very similar, same mobo but 2.8 gig AMD processor, built Dec. 2008. This PC has a nVidia Corporation GeForce 8500 GT vid card that came out of a homebuilt monster running twin dual Xeons, in which the mobo fried. This PC runs Ubuntu Hardy (kernel 2.6.24-generic) These two PCs run cool with only the stock coolers on the CPU, and the case fans. Right now it's 65 outside, maybe 70 in here, the motherboards are both 39C and the processors are 40C (mine, using it now) and the other one at 42C. The onboard audio chips work fine under Ubuntu and under Debian Lenny. The vid chip in the one without the separate vid card seems to warm up if I am doing certain video-intensive operations, although this is rare. It runs movies like Youtube videos just fine, but certain online viewers, such as like zoom viewers on websites, seem to heat it up some. I haven't checked to see if the same type of operations heat up the vid card in the other PC. Ethernet chip also works fine, needed no special tweaking. Nothing needed additional drivers downloaded. Setting up this mobo was a little odd at first. It would not recognize an older HP flatscreen monitor, but can see the Acer monitors just fine. I RMA'd one mobo before I figured out the problem was the monitor, not the vid chip on the mobo. HP techs had no clue why this monitor was not recognized, and could only suggest downloading a different driver... not needed with the more recently-purchased Acer monitor. I like these monitors very much. They are 19" -- not too big for the tabletop setup here, yet have 1680 x 1050 resolution, which is hard to get in the 19" monitors. The monitors now cost about $99 to $119 depending on who's selling them. These monitors are also among the few in this size and price range that come with a DVI cable in the box. Greg Avedissian of WLUG built these PCs (among many others he's built), and he may be able to offer further advice. He does a really nice job building these things & getting them running. I usually am running several different apps in different windows, all at the same time. The speed of the processor is very good, and a dual-core is fine for me. I can wholeheartedly say that I am very happy with these PCs. All the components work together very well, and they easily do everything I need. Hope this helps. Liz J 2009/8/9 David Glaser <dglaser@glaserresearch.net>
I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an integrated motherboard. Asus mobos are especially well designed. In fact, most of their current product line incorporates Splash Top, which is Linux embedded in the BIOS that allows you to boot into a basic OS before hitting the hard drive. If you buy one, you can be sure all the components are Linux compatible. My last three builds have been Asus mATX. Clint ---- E Johnson <iris.gates@gmail.com> wrote: ============= I have, built April 2009: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 Brisbane 2.9GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor - $64.99 ASUS M3A78-CM AM2+/AM2 AMD 780V Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - $74.99 Kingston 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory - $44.99 Cooler Master Elite 335 RC-335-KKN1-GP Black SECC Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - $49.99 Acer X193W+BD Black 19" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor Some SATA hard drive... don't know offhand. Some DVD drive, I forget, nothing spectacular. According to ASUS, this motherboard is a "Corporate Stable Model (CSM) for long-term availability." It has DVI and VGA output. Specs & reviews here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131330
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Clint Moyer wrote:
I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an integrated motherboard.
I agree from a convenience and cost perspective, however if optimal performance is a priority you still need to purchase discrete components. No matter how much the technology advances intergrated components will alway reduce the overall perform of a system to a variable degree. -- Gary
"Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary@hanley.net> writes:
Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Clint Moyer wrote:
I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an integrated motherboard.
Gary> I agree from a convenience and cost perspective, however if Gary> optimal performance is a priority you still need to purchase Gary> discrete components. Umm... I disagree with this statement. It's more of a 'it depends' really. :] Gary> No matter how much the technology advances intergrated Gary> components will alway reduce the overall perform of a system to Gary> a variable degree. Or you could say that "Your system is obsolete the second you build it, so don't sweat it" and just live with this. I've been looking at a new home server, and I don't *care* about graphics performance. I want lots of PCI and PCIe slots, lots of SATA ports, dual Gigabit ethernet and integrated graphics. Probably AMD, since that will give me plenty of performance. And be quiet too. Silence is golden you know... :] Your metrics for performance are quite different from mine. Sure, a seperate high performance graphics card would be nice, but I don't play any computer games all that much, and I could drop one in. John
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08:41AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I'm not sure that it really is an 'it depends' statement. Can you name a single component where the discrete option isn't the path to the highest performance? Video, drive controllers, NICs... Onboard components are primarily chosen for "value" and it usually shows. (That being said, onboard components are usually good for the average case and, assuming they can actually be fully disabled (not always a given historically), can be a good place to start.)
True but not quite his point, I think. I think the gist was "onboard components aren't top of the line and maybe significantly behind that line".
If you want high performance SATA, NICs, or pretty much anything else, you'll want a discrete component for that too. (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.) So I suppose my take on it would be "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path.". Frank
To the point, the original request was: "I want to build a compute/file server. I do a lot of heavy duty software development using the Eclipse IDE and the Java and C++ Development tools. Also, I need to store a lot of data - mostly images." Not especially high-end requirements, beyond perhaps CPU and memory. ---- Franklin Moody <fmoody@moodman.org> wrote: ============= On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08:41AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I'm not sure that it really is an 'it depends' statement. Can you name a single component where the discrete option isn't the path to the highest performance? Video, drive controllers, NICs... Onboard components are primarily chosen for "value" and it usually shows. (That being said, onboard components are usually good for the average case and, assuming they can actually be fully disabled (not always a given historically), can be a good place to start.)
True but not quite his point, I think. I think the gist was "onboard components aren't top of the line and maybe significantly behind that line".
If you want high performance SATA, NICs, or pretty much anything else, you'll want a discrete component for that too. (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.) So I suppose my take on it would be "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path.". Frank
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Clint Moyer wrote:
I responded mostly because of the recent talk about being bewildered by the wide variety of hardware selections and conversations like this help set/spread rules of thumb. While the OP probably won't *need* a very high performance anything (Eclipse is a big boy but it doesn't require top of the line), the place to find it is in discrete components. Which is why I ended with "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path." Frank (Oh, and, if you've got the money to spare, those new fancy vidcards can do more than just video... VDPAU, OpenCL, and so on seem like very cool things to check out to me!)
Franklin> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Clint Moyer wrote:
Franklin> I responded mostly because of the recent talk about Franklin> being bewildered by the wide variety of hardware selections Franklin> and conversations like this help set/spread rules of thumb. Franklin> While the OP probably won't *need* a very high performance Franklin> anything (Eclipse is a big boy but it doesn't require top of Franklin> the line), the place to find it is in discrete components. Franklin> Which is why I ended with "Start with onboard components if Franklin> it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost Franklin> too much) and plan on using discrete components to get Franklin> higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade Franklin> path." I'll agree 100% here with Frank, start with onboard and then goto discrete if you need more performance. One thing to think about though is motherboard which put most of the PCIe lanes into one or possibly two slots, because they're targetting graphics (read games). For a more server oriented board, you'd like to have more slots with more lanes, but since various chipsets are limited to how many lanes they can support, it might make sense to have something like 4 1x slots, 2 4x slots 1 8x slot plus some PCI legacy slots. Of course you'll never find this type of board outside a server only type board, which typically costs lots of bucks. And of course you'll not fit into standard cases either. Franklin> (Oh, and, if you've got the money to spare, those new fancy Franklin> vidcards can do more than just video... VDPAU, OpenCL, and Franklin> so on seem like very cool things to check out to me!) It does look interesting, but I'm also concerned about power/noise issues for a home system. I'd like to get things quieter and use less energy if I can.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Franklin Moody wrote:
(Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.)
Very true. When I build a PC for a friend or family member I usually go integrated as they only want the PC for Internet stuff. For me I buy discrete devices. And the funny thing is that these days it's hard to find a motherboard without integrated video, sound, NIC, etc. -- Gary
"Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary@hanley.net> writes:
Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Franklin Moody wrote:
(Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.)
Gary> Very true. When I build a PC for a friend or family member I usually Gary> go integrated as they only want the PC for Internet stuff. Hear hear! Alot of the newer boards with integrated everything really are quite nice. And power efficient and cool. Key things to think about. If it wasn't for wanting room for disks, a Shuttle style box would be a nice idea, and I keep thinking it might make my desktop... Gary> For me I buy discrete devices. And the funny thing is that these Gary> days it's hard to find a motherboard without integrated video, Gary> sound, NIC, etc. So what OS are you running, and what applications are you running with uses all this GPU power? Now I admit my last system, a Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe has a discrete GPU, but I got a Radeon X1250 (in Feb 2008) because it was just one slot and a passive cooler. It's a big performance jump over my old Matrox G450 AGP card for sure! Anyway, I've found that the onboard sound/network to be just fine, dual Gigabit works nicely, and overpowers anything else on the network at this time. Now, back to the core initial question, which was about the vast variety of of components out there to choose from. It's really terribly confusing, and for only a 5-15% difference in performance, you can spend a ton of money. I personally like Newegg.com for ease of comparing systems. I also like the arstechnica.com system guides. They do quite a decent job, esp on the low end. Their god box is silly. They really need to be thinking of a god desktop, and a good server box instead. Also, for a home system, I think it makes alot of sense to build a nice home server, which sits in a corner and serves files, does backups, hosts a development web server, etc. Then having a desktop which you can play with, muck around with and rebuild at will, all without losing your files or home directory stuff is nice. John
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM, John Stoffel<john@stoffel.org> wrote:
That's a great idea! Somehow, though, whenever I build something like that, to just leave alone to do one job, I end up mucking around with it, too. I can't leave well enough alone! -- Rich Sent from Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
participants (10)
-
Brian Conway -
Brian McLinden -
Clint Moyer -
David Glaser -
E Johnson -
Franklin Moody -
Gary Hanley -
John Stoffel -
Richard Klein -
Ryan Pugatch