Slamd64-12.1 - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slamd64-12.1 - Slackware ; Hi there, I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott) a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box. http://www.slamd64.com/ Grant -- http://bugsplatter.id.au/...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Slamd64-12.1

  1. Slamd64-12.1

    Hi there,

    I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott)
    a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware

    Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box.

    http://www.slamd64.com/

    Grant
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  2. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    On 2008-08-02, Grant wrote:
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott)
    > a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware
    >
    > Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box.
    >
    > http://www.slamd64.com/


    Grant,

    can you tell us whether you notice any difference in performance
    between Slackware and slamd64 (and, if so, on what processor type)?

    Also, I poked around the web site a bit and didn't see any security
    updates. Are they there somewhere?

    Thanks.

    Jim

  3. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    On 2008-08-03, Jim Diamond wrote:
    > On 2008-08-02, Grant wrote:
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott)
    >> a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware
    >>
    >> Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box.
    >>
    >> http://www.slamd64.com/

    >
    > Grant,
    >
    > can you tell us whether you notice any difference in performance
    > between Slackware and slamd64 (and, if so, on what processor type)?
    >
    > Also, I poked around the web site a bit and didn't see any security
    > updates. Are they there somewhere?


    Duh, found them.

    But I'm still interested in opinions of whether slamd64 actually runs
    noticeably better than slackware. (That is, for people *not* using
    programs that require a 64-bit address space.)

    Cheers.

    Jim

  4. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 12:25:18 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:

    >On 2008-08-03, Jim Diamond wrote:
    >> On 2008-08-02, Grant wrote:
    >>> Hi there,
    >>>
    >>> I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott)
    >>> a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.slamd64.com/

    >>
    >> Grant,
    >>
    >> can you tell us whether you notice any difference in performance
    >> between Slackware and slamd64 (and, if so, on what processor type)?


    Not really, I post a comparison CPU benchmark (kernel compile times) soon.
    >>
    >> Also, I poked around the web site a bit and didn't see any security
    >> updates. Are they there somewhere?

    >
    >Duh, found them.
    >
    >But I'm still interested in opinions of whether slamd64 actually runs
    >noticeably better than slackware. (That is, for people *not* using
    >programs that require a 64-bit address space.)


    In that case, I'd stay with slackware if you have 4GB or less memory,
    there's no point running 64bit. I'm not running slackware desktop,
    I run some X apps (eg. Firefox) with Xming over localnet.

    On WinXP with a Core2Quad + 4GB I'm running 32bit. But that machine
    is great for running slack in vmware, I can give a VM 1GB or 2GB of
    memory and 2 processors. (I have WinXP 64bit, but rarely run it, can't
    get 64bit drivers for everything, ho hum).

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  5. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:21:26 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:

    >On 2008-08-02, Grant wrote:
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> I've been using Slamd64-12.1 (the 64bit port of slackware by Fred Emmott)
    >> a fair bit lately and it's just like slackware
    >>
    >> Perhaps worth a try if you have a Core2Duo or so box.
    >>
    >> http://www.slamd64.com/

    >
    >Grant,
    >
    >can you tell us whether you notice any difference in performance
    >between Slackware and slamd64 (and, if so, on what processor type)?


    It's an Intel Core2Duo E6400 2.13GHz with 2GB memory. I haven't benchmarked
    performance difference but it's not much. Slamd64 is better than some 64bit
    ports as it has the 32bit binary libraries as well.

    Kernel build times (hot cache, its hard to clear 2GB memory

    Slackware-12.1:
    grant@pooh:~/linux/linux-2.6.26.1-ext4-5a$ make clean; make -j6
    ....
    grant@pooh:~/linux/linux-2.6.26.1-ext4-5a$ make clean; time make -j6
    ....
    real 3m11.889s
    user 5m44.604s
    sys 0m26.398s

    Slamd64-12.1:
    grant@pooh64:~/linux/linux-2.6.26.1-ext4-5a$ make clean; make -j6
    ....
    grant@pooh64:~/linux/linux-2.6.26.1-ext4-5a$ make clean; time make -j6
    ....
    real 2m59.803s
    user 5m20.766s
    sys 0m32.918s

    Both updated to latest patches. Kernel configs and dmesgs:
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/test/boxen/pooh/
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/test/boxen/pooh64/
    >
    >Also, I poked around the web site a bit and didn't see any security
    >updates. Are they there somewhere?


    I keep a local copy of the install tree, Slamd64 Changelog latest I have:

    Mon Jul 21 07:47:30 BST 2008
    patches/packages/bzip2-1.0.5-x86_64_slamd64-2.tgz: Added missing .so file
    - bug 403
    patches/packages/ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11-noarch_slamd64-3.tgz: Missing
    package - bug 401
    patches/packages/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.16-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated.
    *SECURITY FIX*
    patches/packages/seamonkey-1.1.11-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated.
    *SECURITY FIX*
    +--------------------------+
    Wed Jul 16 08:41:41 BST 2008
    patches/packages/bind-9.4.2_P1-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated - *SECURITY FIX*
    patches/packages/gnutls-2.2.5-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated - *SECURITY FIX*
    patches/packages/mozilla-firefox-2.0.0.15-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated -
    *SECURITY FIX*
    patches/packages/ruby-1.8.6_p230-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated - *SECURITY FIX*
    patches/packages/seamonkey-1.1.10-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated - *SECURITY
    FIX*
    patches/packages/xorg-server-1.4.2-x86_64_slamd64-1.tgz: Updated - *SECURITY
    FIX*
    +--------------------------+

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  6. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    Grant wrote:
    > In that case, I'd stay with slackware if you have 4GB or less memory,
    > there's no point running 64bit. I'm not running slackware desktop,
    > I run some X apps (eg. Firefox) with Xming over localnet.


    Make that "3GB or less", 32-bits Linux cannot make use of the full
    4 GB (as screen memory, kernel I/O mappings etc also have to be fitted
    into the 4 GB address space). Depending on the hardware you can loose
    more than .5 GB of usable RAM.
    --
    ************************************************** *****************
    ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. SSC/ICT **
    ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
    ** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
    ************************************************** *****************

  7. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:30:21 +0200, Eef Hartman wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >> In that case, I'd stay with slackware if you have 4GB or less memory,
    >> there's no point running 64bit. I'm not running slackware desktop,
    >> I run some X apps (eg. Firefox) with Xming over localnet.

    >
    >Make that "3GB or less", 32-bits Linux cannot make use of the full
    >4 GB (as screen memory, kernel I/O mappings etc also have to be fitted
    >into the 4 GB address space). Depending on the hardware you can loose
    >more than .5 GB of usable RAM.


    Yes, I agree, forgot about that

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.id.au/

  8. Re: Slamd64-12.1

    I've been running Slamd64 on my AMD laptop for a couple of years now - since
    just before the first "official" stable release, in fact. Recently I built
    myself a new Core2 Duo desktop and have now moved that onto Slamd64.

    Anyone who has used Slackware for any length of time will be instantly at
    home. In many ways its indistinguishable! Because Fred (like me) is based
    in the UK, we don't have the same software patent concerns as afflict the
    US, so you may find some small differences in the included packages.

    As far as speed goes, I do a lot of video work (I'm a professional video
    editor), and it certainly seems much faster when transcoding large files,
    though I haven't actually timed it. Compared to Slackware on my old
    Athlon-XP machine (I know, not comparing like with like!) the frames per
    second count is between 4 and 5 times faster. This makes quite a difference
    when rendering large files, though how much is down to the 64 bit and how
    much down to the processor is a moot point!

    So far, the only hardware driver issues I've had were for things that I
    couldn't find drivers for under Slackware (or any other Linux) either (like
    the built in wireless card in my laptop!).

    Updates aren't as frequent as Slackware, as Fred is at University, and his
    studies have to come first! Having said that, like Slackware, it is very
    easy to get the source package and update whatever you want yourself! In
    fact, I've just finished doing that with Pan.....!

    In short, its been an excellent experience, and one I would recommend to any
    Slacker wanting to try 64-bit!


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

+ Reply to Thread