Chris Mauritz wrote: > > The 32bit PPC release is for the older G3/G4 macs, no? I've got a > pile of unused G4 400-800mhz powermacs just sitting around The ppc32 distro will work on any NewWorld G3, G4 based machine ( and 32bit ibm power, like the older rs6k's ) - it _also_ works fine on the MacMini and G4 Xserve's. With some common sense tweaks, a G4 450Mhz is a very usable machine running CentOS4 in 386MB of ram. Much more usable than OSX Tiger. > that I'd love to > get some use out of, but I don't think they'd be very responsive with > OSX tiger. how much of Ram do these machines have ? if its anything >=256 megs, you have very functional and usable desktop machines there. > My children's school has a lab full of Macs so I'm > wondering if I donated the machines, installed CentOS and then > volunteered some > time each week to train someone how to maintain them, that might be > better than having them collect dust at the office. Sounds like a plan, go for it - if you have any issues, feel free to drop a message here or come find us on #centos-ppc / #centos on irc.freenode.net > As for PPC64, has anyone done benchmarking between a ppc64 and OSX > system on the same G5 hardware? Linux wins hands down. I am sitting typing this out on a Dual G5 2ghz, and I find Linux to be much more responsive than OSX. anandtech had a write-up recently where they compared OSX Server to Linux on the server side of things, iirc correctly - Linux came out on top. A bit of googling should dig up the exact article. - K
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:> Linux wins hands down.There are two major contributors to this: 1. Until just recently (GCC 4.x), the PPC64 GCC target was very poor. Apple leverages GCC 3.x in current MacOS releases. 2. The pre-emptive Mach microkernel adds overhead and context switching, although it has helped maintain portability (including to x86). [ NOTE: Despite the insistance of Microsoft marketeers, the NT Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) is _not_ a microkernel, and it does _not_ pre-empt the NT kernel. If it did, NT would be much slower. ]> I am sitting typing this out on a Dual G5 2ghz, and I > find Linux to be much more responsive than OSX.Hmmm, "responsiveness" is not a complete test of performance. In fact, prior to the pre-empt patch, based on just "responsiveness," a single CPU Linux system would be near the bottom of the barrel. Responsiveness v. throughput is always a game played -- typically between microkernels and monolithic kernels. Microkernels typically have better response time, monolithic kernels typically have better throughput. Microkernels make re-entry (kernel threading) easier, monolithic kernels make it more difficult. These are oversimplifications, but you get the jist. Ironically enough, although the Mach component of MacOS X is a microkernel, you're running on the Darwin platform which is monolithic. Linux is a monolithic kernel with a couple of approaches to re-entry. I don't like the pre-empt patch, because it is a hack to take adavantage of Linus' ingenious ideal to allow 1 kernel entry per CPU to keep context switching down. That design is specific to the number of physical cores, and overall performance is hurt by the pre-empt patch. In the near-future of dual-core designs, I hope the kernel goes back to 1 entry per CPU. It gives you adequate response time without hurting throughput because there is no additional context switching overhead -- each CPU has a single thread. Linus was a genious in coming up with that.> anandtech had a write-up recently where they compared OSX > Server to Linux on the server side of things, iirc > correctly - Linux came out on top. A bit of googling > should dig up the exact article.It dependend on the application. AnandTech actually made it a 2-parter, investigating more after the first run. Part I: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 Part II: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520 One also needs to remember that Darwin/Cocoa is not a true, "clean" 64-bit platform. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
Karanbir Singh wrote:> Chris Mauritz wrote: > > > > The 32bit PPC release is for the older G3/G4 macs, no? I've got a > > pile of unused G4 400-800mhz powermacs just sitting around > > The ppc32 distro will work on any NewWorld G3, G4 based machine ( and > 32bit ibm power, like the older rs6k's ) - it _also_ works fine on the > MacMini and G4 Xserve's. > > With some common sense tweaks, a G4 450Mhz is a very usable machine > running CentOS4 in 386MB of ram. Much more usable than OSX Tiger. > > > that I'd love to > > get some use out of, but I don't think they'd be very responsive with > > OSX tiger. > > how much of Ram do these machines have ? if its anything >=256 megs, > you have very functional and usable desktop machines there. >Cool. I believe all of them (about a dozen machines) have 512mb RAM.> > > As for PPC64, has anyone done benchmarking between a ppc64 and OSX > > system on the same G5 hardware? > > Linux wins hands down. I am sitting typing this out on a Dual G5 2ghz, > and I find Linux to be much more responsive than OSX. > > anandtech had a write-up recently where they compared OSX Server to > Linux on the server side of things, iirc correctly - Linux came out on > top. A bit of googling should dig up the exact article. >Outstanding! Unfortunately, a few of our dual G5 machines have no choice but to use OSX since they are used as Final Cut Pro and Protools workstations. Thanks for the information. Cheers,