Slackware VS. Slamd64 - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slackware VS. Slamd64 - Slackware ; I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres (Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a read ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Slackware VS. Slamd64

  1. Slackware VS. Slamd64

    I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres
    (Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want
    to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a
    read more about Slackware and Slamd64 I found that Slackware needs 32
    MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    why there is so big difference in needed RAM ? And my question is
    witch one them to choose.....and If I choose Slamd64 (because my CPU
    is AMD) what I will win on lose, and If it matter ?!


  2. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    for_next wrote:
    > I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres
    > (Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want
    > to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a
    > read more about Slackware and Slamd64 I found that Slackware needs 32
    > MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    > why there is so big difference in needed RAM ? And my question is
    > witch one them to choose.....and If I choose Slamd64 (because my CPU
    > is AMD) what I will win on lose, and If it matter ?!


    Firstly, I don't think that slamd64 is only for AMD users, as
    at the time it was being created, the only entity that had 64bit
    x86-based processors was AMD, so the name was based off of that. Intel
    users can use slamd64, as the default kernel with it (2.6.12.4) has
    CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU=y so any 64bit CPU should be able to run the default
    kernel.

    The only difference between using Slackware and Slamd64 is the
    use of the 64bit architecture and the normal differences between 32bit
    and 64bit computing. You will have backwards compatibility with 32bit
    programs (should you install the packages in c/).

    As for memory, I will leave that explanation to Fred, as he
    made the requirement. But ultimately, it will be your choice. I've
    been using slamd64 on my Opteron 142 with no problems, and will be
    migrading that to my A64 3200+.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGgE+pyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnteAKDafFifofJzsgieur96kA VF6aK9ZACbBCOw
    z2QjWJgsUqjTw+mg1ZXGT6w=
    =G4/j
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:54 -0700, for_next
    wrote:

    >I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres
    >(Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want
    >to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a
    >read more about Slackware and Slamd64 I found that Slackware needs 32
    >MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    >why there is so big difference in needed RAM ? And my question is
    >witch one them to choose.....and If I choose Slamd64 (because my CPU
    >is AMD) what I will win on lose, and If it matter ?!


    The answer to this is not as simple as it seems. Remember that the
    whole Linux Kernel was developed with a 32 bit data stream in mind.
    Not only is the kernel a 32 bit kernel most (if not all) of the
    applications that are available for Linux were all designed using that
    same 32 bit data stream.

    With that in mind, will you see a plus when using Slamd64, probably
    a slight one until such time that the kernel/applications are
    redesigned from the ground up, so to speak, to utilize a 64 bit data
    bus.

    Last I heard, sland64 wasn't really a usable distro of Linux, matter
    of fact I tried is at one time, not too long ago, and found that many
    of the apps that I was used to using just didn't exist or would not
    work with slamd64.

    Althiom

  4. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:28:43 +0000, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > for_next wrote:
    >> I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres
    >> (Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want
    >> to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a read
    >> more about Slackware and Slamd64 I found that Slackware needs 32 MB of
    >> RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware why
    >> there is so big difference in needed RAM ? And my question is witch
    >> one them to choose.....and If I choose Slamd64 (because my CPU is AMD)
    >> what I will win on lose, and If it matter ?!

    >
    > Firstly, I don't think that slamd64 is only for AMD users, as
    > at the time it was being created, the only entity that had 64bit
    > x86-based processors was AMD, so the name was based off of that. Intel
    > users can use slamd64, as the default kernel with it (2.6.12.4) has
    > CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU=y so any 64bit CPU should be able to run the default
    > kernel.


    This wouldn't work for Itanium though.

  5. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    On 2007-06-25, Althiom wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:54 -0700, for_next
    > wrote:
    >
    > The answer to this is not as simple as it seems. Remember that the
    > whole Linux Kernel was developed with a 32 bit data stream in mind.
    > Not only is the kernel a 32 bit kernel most (if not all) of the
    > applications that are available for Linux were all designed using that
    > same 32 bit data stream.
    >
    > With that in mind, will you see a plus when using Slamd64, probably
    > a slight one until such time that the kernel/applications are
    > redesigned from the ground up, so to speak, to utilize a 64 bit data
    > bus.
    >
    > Last I heard, sland64 wasn't really a usable distro of Linux, matter
    > of fact I tried is at one time, not too long ago, and found that many
    > of the apps that I was used to using just didn't exist or would not
    > work with slamd64.
    >
    > Althiom



    And what applications are that? I've been running slamd64 since the "coaster"
    days and everything I use in Slamd64 I use in Slackware... no problems at all.

    So, please, provide some examples and feedback. If you expect the developer
    and the rest of the contributors to read your mind, you'll be waiting a while.

    -Matt

  6. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    Althiom wrote (Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:45:58 -0400):

    > Last I heard, sland64 wasn't really a usable distro of Linux, matter of
    > fact I tried is at one time, not too long ago, and found that many of
    > the apps that I was used to using just didn't exist or would not work
    > with slamd64.


    You heard wrong. I have been using slamd64 for more than 2 years now, and
    it works well for me in everyday use. I am not sure about everyday
    merits, but for heavy numbercrunching I do, it brings (reportedly) a few
    percent.

    Problems could be found (maybe) in video stuff, which I don't use here. I
    use dropline (18.2 beta atm), LaTex, OpenOffice, epiphany, and program in
    C, C++, (Fortran) and am using VTK quite often. I only miss flash for
    some sites, but didn't bother to repair that. It seems to be possible,
    but I was too lazy - not worth the trouble.


    In any case, slamd64 is perfectly usable for my daily work. And, due to
    its simple way to integrate 32bit applications, there are no limits in
    using 32bit-only software.

    Good luck..

    Franz


  7. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
    > CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU=y so any 64bit CPU should be able to run the default
    > kernel.


    Not _any_ 64-bit CPU, the Intel Itanium-based systems won't run with
    it, only the ones that Intel specifies as having "EM64T" (Expanded
    memory 64-bits Technology). That is - as you already wrote - exactly
    the main difference between those cpu's and the Pentium based ones -
    they can use 64-bits in MEMORY references and thus can address large
    (> 4GB) RAM easier and faster then the 32-bit Pentium can (IT can only
    do so in 4 GB segments).
    On the other hand, 32-bits programs are smaller as they DON'T need those
    large memory addresses.
    --
    ************************************************** ******************
    ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
    ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
    ** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
    ************************************************** ******************

  8. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:54 -0700, for_next wrote:

    > I found that Slackware needs 32
    > MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    > why there is so big difference in needed RAM ?


    Is it even possible to get an AMD64 machine with less than 128 MB? Has
    such a thing ever existed?

    For practical puposes, there's not much to choose betwen 32 and 64 bit
    until somewhere near the 1 GB mark.

  9. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    msm (msm@domain.invalid) writes:
    > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:54 -0700, for_next wrote:
    >
    >> I found that Slackware needs 32
    >> MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    >> why there is so big difference in needed RAM ?

    >
    > Is it even possible to get an AMD64 machine with less than 128 MB? Has
    > such a thing ever existed?
    >

    I wondered about that. Double the bus width, and you have to double the
    memory width. Divide 128megs by 8 (since there are 8*8 bits in a 64 bit
    bus) and you get all of 16megs that is 64 bits wide. Same thing as in
    the old days, when you'd move to a better process, and suddenly the
    SIMMs were "1meg", until you realize instead of 1meg by 8bits it's 1meg by
    32bits, 4 megs total.

    RAM technology has moved on, and you are less likely to find lower density
    RAM, hence you're right, it may be difficult to find 64 bits of RAM that
    are less then 16megs per byte.

    Michael

    > For practical puposes, there's not much to choose betwen 32 and 64 bit
    > until somewhere near the 1 GB mark.




  10. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    On Jun 26, 10:31 am, e...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:
    > msm (m...@domain.invalid) writes:
    > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:54 -0700, for_next wrote:

    >
    > >> I found that Slackware needs 32
    > >> MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    > >> why there is so big difference in needed RAM ?

    >
    > > Is it even possible to get an AMD64 machine with less than 128 MB? Has
    > > such a thing ever existed?

    >
    > I wondered about that. Double the bus width, and you have to double the
    > memory width. Divide 128megs by 8 (since there are 8*8 bits in a 64 bit
    > bus) and you get all of 16megs that is 64 bits wide. Same thing as in
    > the old days, when you'd move to a better process, and suddenly the
    > SIMMs were "1meg", until you realize instead of 1meg by 8bits it's 1meg by
    > 32bits, 4 megs total.
    >
    > RAM technology has moved on, and you are less likely to find lower density
    > RAM, hence you're right, it may be difficult to find 64 bits of RAM that
    > are less then 16megs per byte.
    >
    > Michael
    >
    > > For practical puposes, there's not much to choose betwen 32 and 64 bit
    > > until somewhere near the 1 GB mark.



    i dont see a need for the 64bit on the desktop yet.. nothing runs on
    it..
    and is there really that much of an increase in the server world?


  11. Re: Slackware VS. Slamd64

    for_next wrote:

    > I know that Slamd64 cames from Slackware, but it's for AMD useres
    > (Slamd64 = Slackware + AMD 64). I use AMD 64 Althlon 3000+ and I want
    > to ask what is the difference between them......I mean that when a
    > read more about Slackware and Slamd64 I found that Slackware needs 32
    > MB of RAM and Slamd64 needs 128 MB. If Slamd64 is same like Slackware
    > why there is so big difference in needed RAM ? And my question is
    > witch one them to choose.....and If I choose Slamd64 (because my CPU
    > is AMD) what I will win on lose, and If it matter ?!


    Like others here, I've been using Slamd64 since the "coaster" days, and aside
    from the odd development hiccup in "current", its been absolutely stable!

    I mostly use it for video coding, but its installed in a Mitac laptop - not a
    particularly Linux friendly beast - and I've actually had *more* success under
    64 bit than I had under 32 bit!

    The winmodem works (which it was reluctant to do under 32 bit) and I can even
    get 3d graphics acceleration on the Ati graphics card without using the ati
    drivers!

    There are minor differences from Slackware, mostly I suspect because the patent
    laws are different on this side of the pond - in fact you might say they're
    slacker (groan!).

    If you're a SLackware fan like me, and you've got a 64 bit machine, Slamd64 is
    the way to go!

    (BTW apologies to someone, I don't know who! My first attempt at posting this I
    hit the wrong button and sent as e-mail! Whoops!)

    --
    Pete
    christy@NOattglobalSPAM.net
    (make the obvious amendments to reply!)

+ Reply to Thread