SMP Linux - What to choose?

[agg123456789]

Hello all. I just aquired a Tyan Tiger 100 and two PII 300s. Naturally, I decided that this would become the household web/email/ and fileserver. Problem is, that I have never used an SMP enabled linux before. Whats the best distro? In the past I have used Mandrake, and I quite like it, but if there is something better out there for SMP, I would like to know about it.


Much thanks.

AGG123456789

 

[Bremen]

from user space going from 1 -> 2 procs is almost invisible. In fact all it takes is switching to a smp enabled kernel. Essentially the choises for SMP are the same as for single cpu systems. Although arguments against mandrake do get more serious from nutcases like me who think its not a serious sever type environment :0)

 

[agg123456789]

It may not be, but the bueaty found in mandrake (at least for me) is that when i choose to set up particular servers/services and tell them to start at boot, they work right from the get-go. I have a functional system right after the install. I have found that Red Hat (the only other distro i have spent time with) is not this way.

Since you dislike Mandrake.... What would you suggest I try?


AGG123456789

 

[n0cmonkey]

Knoppix and the SuSE live eval cd are ways to see linux from a distance. They are run off of cdrom so no tough installation is necessary. Of course, you do not get a real feel for the system, but if you stilll arent sure you really want to try, this is probably the way to go.

Choices like RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE are generally what you hear given to newbies looking to dip their toes in the water. These three companies are breaking new ground in usability on the linux front. They each have utilities to help install software and maintain older software. Their gui tools are typically installed on only their systems, so moving to another distribution after using one of these may be sort of a culture shock, especially if you choose one of the other distros I mention. These distros also generally go with bleeding edge, or damn close to it, software. They are also known to modify the default kernels a bit, but its typically not a problem. If you want to use it without necessarily learning much, this is the way to go.

Debian, Gentoo, and Slackware are a different breed:
Slackware wants to be the most "unix-like" and may be tough for some newbies. I personally liked Slackware 7 better than the current RedHat (at the time) because it was tough. I got to do things by hand instead of letting a system that may fail handle them for me. It taught me a lot by forcing me to do things.
Debian is for the GPL nut (yes, I say that just to annoy Nothinman ). Debian has a confusing install, if you dont read the instructions. It forces you, like Slackware, to do the work yourself. However, unlike Slackware, Debian has one of the most advancned software installation systems out there, for *any* OS. Using simple front-ends you can select from thousands of software packages, have the software download that package and any dependencies it may have, and install them for you. Typically this is a pain-free procedure. It can also update the base system and all packagess you have installed.

I will take a break for a second before going on to Gentoo to make a quick note abotu both Debian and Slackware. Both of these ditributions are fairly serious. If you want to learn the nitty gritty, this is the way to go. A nice mix of pre-built system, with dependancy on knwoledge. Both distros are a bit behind, but security fixes have been back-ported. They are very stable (even their unstable branches are pretty much production ready).

And on to Gentoo. I have not used this distro yet, but I have heard good things about it. It requires software to be compiled locally (and most of the system from what Im told) using their "emerge" system (similar to BSD ports). It is supposed to be fast (unless you are waiting for software to compile ) and fairly stable. They do however, have some fairly bleeding edge software. It sounds like a mix between the Debian/Slack camp and RH/Mandrake/SuSE camp.

 

[Bremen]

I dislike it because it has pretty graphics, seriously :0) Being pretty does not make you better, it just makes you nicer to look at. For a home system this may be desirable since one will presumably spend much time looking at it. However, when it comes to a server, looking at it is not the prime function. Instead you're looking at the backend, the things that don't have GUI's. In short when it comes to a server pretty graphics are irrelevant and snobby people like me think making it easier just makes it easier to set it up badly, hence making it a security risk.

 

[Nothinman]

Debian.

 

[Darkcirc]

Either way the point remains any distro will allow you to use SMP, its just a matter of compiling the kernel or installing an SMP one. Choose your favorite, use it. Try lots, then jump into this argument. Personally I use mandrake because I have learned to deal with its config quirks and how to configure it quickly and securely. I am looking into debian and gentoo. I like the idea of local compiles based on your arch, if I have 2 P3s I should use thier enhancements and not use the old pentium stuff, you know, take advantage if you can, I certainly don't want to think I have 2 really really fast P54s under the hood. Summary: use one you like, evolve from there.
dc

 

[bromer]

Gentoo.. as it have a sourcetree... if you wanne move outside linux.. try FreeBSD.

 

[Nothinman]

Gentoo.. as it have a sourcetree... if you wanne move outside linux.. try FreeBSD.

You realize every version of Linux offers their source, right? And do you know how long it takes to build X from source? Source is nice to have (and I can get source to practically everything in Debian by typing 'apt-get source packagename') but building everything from source is just a hassle most of the time.

 

[bromer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Gentoo.. as it have a sourcetree... if you wanne move outside linux.. try FreeBSD.

You realize every version of Linux offers their source, right? And do you know how long it takes to build X from source? Source is nice to have (and I can get source to practically everything in Debian by typing 'apt-get source packagename') but building everything from source is just a hassle most of the time.

Yes I know that Linux offer ther source. But that isn't the same as having a source tree. I have build X, mozilla and much more from source. In fact all on my current FreeBSD desktop is build from source. Building from source tree gives you much more freedom. I can in my FreeBSD rebuild my whole world (every program and kernel) anytime I want. This will make all your programs much faster as I set what kind of CPU I have. Then the machinecode generated by gcc woun't produce many blocks or stall.. this is nice!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bromer

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Gentoo.. as it have a sourcetree... if you wanne move outside linux.. try FreeBSD.

You realize every version of Linux offers their source, right? And do you know how long it takes to build X from source? Source is nice to have (and I can get source to practically everything in Debian by typing 'apt-get source packagename') but building everything from source is just a hassle most of the time.

Yes I know that Linux offer ther source. But that isn't the same as having a source tree. I have build X, mozilla and much more from source. In fact all on my current FreeBSD desktop is build from source. Building from source tree gives you much more freedom. I can in my FreeBSD rebuild my whole world (every program and kernel) anytime I want. This will make all your programs much faster as I set what kind of CPU I have. Then the machinecode generated by gcc woun't produce many blocks or stall.. this is nice!

gcc's optmizations arent great for many processors. Plus, you dont necessarily gain much speed, and what you do gain is counter balanced with the time it took to build each program. Build X on an IPC, IPX, or even a SS10 and see what I mean.

Source has its place, and I prefer it for many things, but its not always the best solution.

 

[Nothinman]

Building from source tree gives you much more freedom.

In what way?

I can in my FreeBSD rebuild my whole world (every program and kernel) anytime I want.

I can do that with Debian too, I just don't feel compelled to do so.

This will make all your programs much faster as I set what kind of CPU I have. Then the machinecode generated by gcc woun't produce many blocks or stall.. this is nice!

Specifying the CPU makes little different, 95% of the asm generated by GCC is compatible across all generations of a CPU. And I don't believe GCC supports SSE or SSE2 the main things that might help on x86 processors and even then I doubt the speed increase would be too great.

You may notice a difference on non-Intel boxes like Alpha or UltraSparcs where the differences between CPUs are great, but even then the time required to build things like X and Mozilla makes it too much of a pain. The Debian team looked into having different packages for different generations of CPUs (like i386, i586 and i686 builds of the same package) but the gains just weren't there.

 

[bromer]

Of cause you can rebulid every program from source in Debian, but that dosn't mean that you can rebuild your world. Does Debian have a word like gentoo and bsd have? And I can feel that I have rebuild my world with gcc knowing my CPU, so I guess it makes a difference sometimes. I would agree that you could just get the binary package if you just wanted a standard app. But allmost everytime I install one of my ports I have a few things I would like to disable because I don't need them. This is harder to do with the binary packages.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bromer
Of cause you can rebulid every program from source in Debian, but that dosn't mean that you can rebuild your world. Does Debian have a word like gentoo and bsd have? And I can feel that I have rebuild my world with gcc knowing my CPU, so I guess it makes a difference sometimes. I would agree that you could just get the binary package if you just wanted a standard app. But allmost everytime I install one of my ports I have a few things I would like to disable because I don't need them. This is harder to do with the binary packages.

The binary selection in Debian seemed fairly complete when I looked at it. As for build world, there is not much point unless that is the only option you really have for patching.

 

[bromer]

When you say that the binary selected is complete (or fairly) do you mean that you can set all the optios you can when you compile the source. Well. as I have experinced increased performence I have a reason for makeing my own world and not do a binary upgrade. You can do a binary upgrade in FreeBSD, but I have no idea if you can do it in gentoo though

 

[Nothinman]

Of cause you can rebulid every program from source in Debian, but that dosn't mean that you can rebuild your world

Yes, I can. There's a command that's called 'apt-build' and it has a parameter called 'world' that will rebuild everything on my system from source. I havn't personally done it because it's pointless, but I have the ability.

And I can feel that I have rebuild my world with gcc knowing my CPU, so I guess it makes a difference sometimes.

One word: placebo.

But allmost everytime I install one of my ports I have a few things I would like to disable because I don't need them. This is harder to do with the binary packages.

Most packages are modular enough that I can only install that I want or they only serve one purpose. The ones that don't, so what? I'll deal with the little bit of disk space lost, god knows I've got enough.

Debian currently has >11,000 packages that I can install in downloadtime+10s. I'm sorry but I don't like waiting an hour for X to build everytime a new version is released, I've got better things to do. And try removing one of those packages, it's much easier to do 'apt-get remove packgename' than to get rid of a source built package that may or may not have an uninstall directive in the Makefile.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bromer
When you say that the binary selected is complete (or fairly) do you mean that you can set all the optios you can when you compile the source.

Probably not all (I dont currently have a linux machine to look at), but most of the options in these open source / free softwares are crap anyhow. There are usually a couple of useful options and a bunch of cruft cluttering up the source.

Well. as I have experinced increased performence I have a reason for makeing my own world and not do a binary upgrade. You can do a binary upgrade in FreeBSD, but I have no idea if you can do it in gentoo though

No clue on Gentoo, and I guess its good you notice some speed increases. I have never really run the numbers before and after a source tree build on OpenBSD, so I dont know how much better the numbers get. Hell, I practically stopped building custom kernels out of laziness.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And try removing one of those packages, it's much easier to do 'apt-get remove packgename' than to get rid of a source built package that may or may not have an uninstall directive in the Makefile.

pkg_delete pkg_name
cd /usr/ports/dir/pkg_name&&make clean

Atleast for ports/packages (which was mentioned).

 

[bromer]

Probably not all (I dont currently have a linux machine to look at), but most of the options in these open source / free softwares are crap anyhow. There are usually a couple of useful options and a bunch of cruft cluttering up the source.

Well.. this might just be the reason.. I don't agree. It's correct that there are many options you don't use.. but some use. I godt tired of debian because I coun't se all the options I would like to. I like to disable as much as possible to decrease codesize and sometimes this will increase the programs performence.. I can understand that you can't see the power in making a world if you use the programs as the come in binary packages

 

[bromer]

Debian currently has >11,000 packages that I can install in downloadtime+10s. I'm sorry but I don't like waiting an hour for X to build everytime a new version is released, I've got better things to do. And try removing one of those packages, it's much easier to do 'apt-get remove packgename' than to get rid of a source built package that may or may not have an uninstall directive in the Makefile.

Well.. I install my programs from FreeBSD ports collection.. they all have a denistall options in the Makefile, so this isn't a problem. I don't sit and look at gcc work when I upgrade my X.. I just set i to recompile and then do what I might else use the computer for... maybe some chess ... it get's done sometime then I restart X... not a big deal

 

[bromer]

One word: placebo.

Well.. some of it might be... But I have seen that X, ion, vim and a lot other programs use less CPU time and less memery.. this isn't just placebo.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bromer

Probably not all (I dont currently have a linux machine to look at), but most of the options in these open source / free softwares are crap anyhow. There are usually a couple of useful options and a bunch of cruft cluttering up the source.

Well.. this might just be the reason.. I don't agree. It's correct that there are many options you don't use.. but some use. I godt tired of debian because I coun't se all the options I would like to. I like to disable as much as possible to decrease codesize and sometimes this will increase the programs performence.. I can understand that you can't see the power in making a world if you use the programs as the come in binary packages

I use a combination of OpenBSD ports and packages and on rare occassions source code not in the ports collection. I still see many of the options in these programs as crap because I have no use for them. I typically disable as much as possible, but not out of some attempt at smaller binaries, but because smaller programs typically should have less holes in them. With the price of x86 hardware, and the speeds they are currently at, I have no need to try and get every milisecond out of a program. Especially if I have to wait 10min to use it.

 

[bromer]

I use a combination of OpenBSD ports and packages and on rare occassions source code not in the ports collection. I still see many of the options in these programs as crap because I have no use for them. I typically disable as much as possible, but not out of some attempt at smaller binaries, but because smaller programs typically should have less holes in them. With the price of x86 hardware, and the speeds they are currently at, I have no need to try and get every milisecond out of a program. Especially if I have to wait 10min to use it.

Well.. okay.. we just didn't have the same definition of the work 'crap'

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bromer

I use a combination of OpenBSD ports and packages and on rare occassions source code not in the ports collection. I still see many of the options in these programs as crap because I have no use for them. I typically disable as much as possible, but not out of some attempt at smaller binaries, but because smaller programs typically should have less holes in them. With the price of x86 hardware, and the speeds they are currently at, I have no need to try and get every milisecond out of a program. Especially if I have to wait 10min to use it.

Well.. okay.. we just didn't have the same definition of the work 'crap'

No, we dont. But Im an OpenBSD user so my definition is correct.

 

[bromer]

No, we dont. But Im an OpenBSD user so my definition is correct.

Ahh. I see.. well. very sorry then