from my googling around, it doesn't look there is a single motherboard that supports core 2 duo and works without patches or tweaks. is that true? the main thing we want is:
core 2 duo support 4g of 800mhz (or better) ram sata gig ether with pxe boot
we can live without pata or usb for a while.
we've tried intel 965 and asus p5b based boards with various levels of ease of install, but all required some kind of driver update, which just isn't acceptable to us. well, i guess it could be acceptable if it could be built in to a pxe boot setup, but so far i haven't found any docs to even let me understand how hard/easy that might be.
does v5 support any of these boards better?
Yeah, it doesn't work and they refuse to patch the kernel in CentOS 4 to make it work; so it looks like everyone will be waiting until march.
-Drew
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Joe Pruett Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:08 AM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
from my googling around, it doesn't look there is a single motherboard that supports core 2 duo and works without patches or tweaks. is that true? the main thing we want is:
core 2 duo support 4g of 800mhz (or better) ram sata gig ether with pxe boot
we can live without pata or usb for a while.
we've tried intel 965 and asus p5b based boards with various levels of ease of install, but all required some kind of driver update, which just isn't acceptable to us. well, i guess it could be acceptable if it could be built in to a pxe boot setup, but so far i haven't found any docs to even let me understand how hard/easy that might be.
does v5 support any of these boards better?
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/19/07, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't work and they refuse to patch the kernel in CentOS 4 to make it work; so it looks like everyone will be waiting until march.
Just to clarify this statement: Centos reproduces RHEL functionality. This modification is not being reflected upstream at this time (though it may hit in rhel4 update 5 or later). Because upstream is not making the change, and the project goal is to be 100% compatible with upstream, CentOS will not make a modification that deviates from the upstream provider in such a fashion.
Jim Perrin wrote:
On 1/19/07, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't work and they refuse to patch the kernel in CentOS 4 to make it work; so it looks like everyone will be waiting until march.
Just to clarify this statement: Centos reproduces RHEL functionality. This modification is not being reflected upstream at this time (though it may hit in rhel4 update 5 or later). Because upstream is not making the change, and the project goal is to be 100% compatible with upstream, CentOS will not make a modification that deviates from the upstream provider in such a fashion.
And again, thank you to the CentOS team for this exact tenet! I think we all know that RedHat is very conservative with their OS, delivering consistently robust and well tested products. Yes, it can sometimes be frustrating to not have the latest cutting edge tech, but those who live on the cutting edge sometimes bleed. I don't like bleeding.
Best, John Hinton
Well, on the other hand 2.6.18 was released over 4 months ago (1 quarter of a year).
So I guess you can look at it either way.
-Drew
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of John Hinton Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:16 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
Jim Perrin wrote:
On 1/19/07, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
Yeah, it doesn't work and they refuse to patch the kernel in CentOS 4
to make it work; so it looks like everyone will be waiting until
march.
Just to clarify this statement: Centos reproduces RHEL functionality. This modification is not being reflected upstream at this time (though
it may hit in rhel4 update 5 or later). Because upstream is not making
the change, and the project goal is to be 100% compatible with upstream, CentOS will not make a modification that deviates from the upstream provider in such a fashion.
And again, thank you to the CentOS team for this exact tenet! I think we all know that RedHat is very conservative with their OS, delivering consistently robust and well tested products. Yes, it can sometimes be frustrating to not have the latest cutting edge tech, but those who live on the cutting edge sometimes bleed. I don't like bleeding.
Best, John Hinton _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 1/19/07, Drew Weaver drew.weaver@thenap.com wrote:
Well, on the other hand 2.6.18 was released over 4 months ago (1 quarter of a year).
So I guess you can look at it either way.
However, the release doesn't guarantee stability , since development is being done in the live 2.6 kernel tree. This release includes API/ABI changes which may affect the larger organizations who have custom operations (DoD, financial institutions, universities, etc). The also affects the tenant of backporting bugfixes and security updates vs not adding new features while adding hardware support, and testing all of it to ensure that it functions exactly as it is supposed to. When you look at the scope of operation, and the userbase affected, 4 months doesn't seem that long anymore.
None of this stops you from using a custom kernel with your centos or rhel environment. It just won't be supported by either community. If you're smart enough, you can do whatever you want with your own system. This is the fundamental beauty of open source. If you don't like it, then change it.
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 12:36 -0500, Drew Weaver wrote:
Well, on the other hand 2.6.18 was released over 4 months ago (1 quarter of a year).
So I guess you can look at it either way.
This might be a shocker ... if you don't want a distro that is compatible with RHEL ... then CentOS is not for you.
There are any number of distros out there that use the 2.6.18 kernel (centos-5 will have that too). I am sorry if people want the newest kernel ... or the newest KDE ... or the newest [pick your package].
CentOS has stated goals ... and providing an enterprise distro that is as close as legally possible to the upsteam sources is what we do. If that is not what one wants ... then by all means, use something else.
CentOS is not Ubuntu, it's not Gentoo ... it is what it is.
That is all ... carry on
Drew Weaver wrote:
Well, on the other hand 2.6.18 was released over 4 months ago (1 quarter of a year).
So I guess you can look at it either way.
Drew Weaver spake the following on 1/19/2007 8:23 AM:
Yeah, it doesn't work and they refuse to patch the kernel in CentOS 4 to make it work; so it looks like everyone will be waiting until march.
-Drew
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistant environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
Scott Silva wrote:
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistant environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Peter
Peter Serwe wrote:
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Even if this is the wrong mailing list for this: What makes you think Fedora is shutting down?
Ralph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Angenendt" ra+centos@br-online.de To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--- redone1224 redone1224@adelphia.net wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Angenendt" ra+centos@br-online.de To: centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
is this written in some kind of invisible fonts or is my mail program acting up again?
Steven
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux."
is this written in some kind of invisible fonts or is my mail program acting up again?
Steven
I think you have to print the email out, rub it with lemon juice, and then hold it over a candle for the message to show up.
That or he hasn't learned to use a proper email client yet, because it's blank here too. As is his later post.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 2:45pm, Peter Serwe wrote
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
?? Fedora is *not* shutting down. Core and Extras are merging, but plans for Fedora 7 continue apace. Maybe you're thinking of Fedora Legacy, which did shut down, but it was trying to fill the niche that RHEL/Centos already fill, really.
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 2:45pm, Peter Serwe wrote
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
?? Fedora is *not* shutting down. Core and Extras are merging, but plans for Fedora 7 continue apace. Maybe you're thinking of Fedora Legacy, which did shut down, but it was trying to fill the niche that RHEL/Centos already fill, really.
*gasp* I sit corrected I had Legacy confused with the Fedora project in general.
My bad.
Peter
?? Fedora is *not* shutting down. Core and Extras are merging, but plans for Fedora 7 continue apace. Maybe you're thinking of Fedora Legacy, which did shut down, but it was trying to fill the niche that RHEL/Centos already fill, really.
*gasp* I sit corrected I had Legacy confused with the Fedora project in general.
in my mail list/faq/wiki perusals on the fedora sites, I found a mention of a new fedora-security project that is being considered as a possible alternative to Legacy. One would guess this would consist mostly of critical security fixes rather than general bug releases, but having that would go a long way towards me being willing to consider basing a self-supported production system on fedora
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
fedora core is shutting down?? I know they are shutting down fedora LEGACY, which provided update support for older versions of FC and RHL, but this is the first I've heard Fedora itself is shutting down. They are already planning Fedora 7. Oh, ok, they are dropping 'core' and 'extras', now it will be just 'fedora'. See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg00091.html
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 14:45 -0800, Peter Serwe wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistant environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Just for the record ... The Fedora Project is not shutting down.
In fact, they are getting bigger (at least the distro is by combining all the Extras and Core together).
Not only that ... they are supposedly the "Knight in Shining Armor" :P
Everybody knows Knights never give up :)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=627&num=1
And the point is ... Enterprise Linux is not Bleeding Edge, and CentOS is for the Enterprise ... however, Fedora is Bleeding edge and works very well on newer hardware.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnny Hughes" mailing-lists@hughesjr.com To: "CentOS ML" centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
redone1224 spake the following on 1/19/2007 4:16 PM:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnny Hughes" mailing-lists@hughesjr.com To: "CentOS ML" centos@centos.org Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Blank again. Maybe his mailer is sending html only and getting stripped?
Peter Serwe wrote:
for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Err... it was only Fedore Legacy that is shutting down... the ancient RH9 and earlier and the irrelevant FC1, 2 and 3. Why irrelevant? Because they are old bleeding edge. No point running old bleeding edge software :)
Morten Torstensen wrote:
Peter Serwe wrote:
for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Err... it was only Fedore Legacy that is shutting down... the ancient RH9 and earlier and the irrelevant FC1, 2 and 3. Why irrelevant? Because they are old bleeding edge. No point running old bleeding edge software :)
On the proposed new timescale for fedora releases, install FC6 now, and expect no more updates after Fedora 8 releases in the fall.
With the previous timeframe, FC5 (released March 06) will stop getting updates when Test2 of Fedora 7 releases, which is, um... next month.
I dunno, but I really don't like having to reinstall any machine thats running any sort of services, even a personal home mail/webserver **
** this is where I admit my personal home web/mail/firewall server is running something that once resembled RH6
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 07:39:43PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On the proposed new timescale for fedora releases, install FC6 now, and expect no more updates after Fedora 8 releases in the fall.
I dunno, but I really don't like having to reinstall any machine thats running any sort of services, even a personal home mail/webserver **
This is why I've stopped using Fedora; all new machine builds are CentOS, and slowly slowly slowly I'm migrating my older machines over.
I like getting security patches for machines built 3 years ago!
Peter Serwe wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistant environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Fedora's not shutting down. Fedora Legacy is reducing support (dropping RHL 7.3 and other RHL and (maybe) older FC).
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
Peter Serwe wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistent environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Fedora's not shutting down. Fedora Legacy is reducing support (dropping RHL 7.3 and other RHL and (maybe) older FC).
Fedora Legacy is not reducing support, it is dead!! It died due to lack of interest on the part of the people who do the actual work.
You are correct though that Fedora is not shutting down. I mention this because there seem to be people on this list that do not understand the difference. :-(
Regards,
Tom Diehl wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
Peter Serwe wrote:
Scott Silva wrote:
If you want the latest and greatest, CentOS is not for you. Try Fedora. If you want a consistent environment that you won't have to re-compile or rewrite your mission critical apps at every update, that is what CentOS and all other enterprise class distros are all about.
I realize why I see this mantra of try Fedora Core all the time when people are requesting bleeding-edge features from a distro that specifically mandates otherwise in it's stated purpose, but isn't recommending a project that has announced it's shutting down kind of counter-productive for everybody? Granted, it is bleeding edge, but the project's shutting down, so it seems kind of a wrong answer.
Fedora's not shutting down. Fedora Legacy is reducing support (dropping RHL 7.3 and other RHL and (maybe) older FC).
Fedora Legacy is not reducing support, it is dead!! It died due to lack of interest on the part of the people who do the actual work.
I'm not sure it's entirely dead, though it's closer than I suggested. Here's the notice from its website:
"The current model for supporting maintenance distributions is being re-examined. In the meantime, we are unable to extend support to older Fedora Core releases as we had planned. As of now, Fedora Core 4 and earlier distributions are no longer being maintained."
You are correct though that Fedora is not shutting down. I mention this because there seem to be people on this list that do not understand the difference. :-(
It's always the case that what seems clear to some is unclear to me.
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think) and CentOS 4 is a good match for FC3.
Note, "good match" is less than "perfect match." Making it work may require some skill:-)
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 07:20 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
I'm not sure it's entirely dead, though it's closer than I suggested. Here's the notice from its website:
"The current model for supporting maintenance distributions is being re-examined. In the meantime, we are unable to extend support to older Fedora Core releases as we had planned. As of now, Fedora Core 4 and earlier distributions are no longer being maintained."
You are correct though that Fedora is not shutting down. I mention this because there seem to be people on this list that do not understand the difference. :-(
It's always the case that what seems clear to some is unclear to me.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2006-December/msg00049.ht...
(that thread ... also carrying over into January is quite clear. The FedoraLegacy project is shutting down (as in, they are doing no more updates for any FC/RH distro past, present, or future). They are not even sure if they will maintain the currently built content anywhere.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2007-January/thread.html
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think) and CentOS 4 is a good match for FC3.
Note, "good match" is less than "perfect match." Making it work may require some skill:-)
Those are the correct FC versions as a basis for the CentOS releases, yes.
Theo Band wrote:
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think)
More RHEL9 than FC1.
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Theo Band wrote:
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think)
More RHEL9 than FC1.
Errm. Make that RH9, I don't want to go too far into the future ...
Ralph
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:14 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Theo Band wrote:
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think)
More RHEL9 than FC1.
Errm. Make that RH9, I don't want to go too far into the future ...
Right ... that one is a hard call ... as it was based on RH9 with some FC1 stuff rolled in to :P
What about Centos4.4 is that similar to FC4/RHEL4? Actually I want to have the version closest to RHEL4.
Centos 4.4 is based on RHEL 4, update 4, which is based on FC3 + security fixes and bug updates.
The FC version numbering has no effect on RHEL or Centos version numbering, they just happened to pass each other with RHEL/Centos4. Fedora numbering will gradually pull away, as RHEL5 is based on FC6, and FC7 is due out while RHEL5 will still be very young.
Jim Perrin wrote:
What about Centos4.4 is that similar to FC4/RHEL4? Actually I want to have the version closest to RHEL4.
Centos 4.4 is based on RHEL 4, update 4, which is based on FC3 + security fixes and bug updates.
and a different package selection. I don't think RHEL has three desktops.
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:05 +0100, Theo Band wrote:
btw, if you're particularly keen to stat at about the RHL 7.3 level then CentOS 2.1 is close, CentOS 3 is close to FC1 (I think) and CentOS 4 is a good match for FC3.
Note, "good match" is less than "perfect match." Making it work may require some skill:-)
Those are the correct FC versions as a basis for the CentOS releases, yes.
What about Centos4.4 is that similar to FC4/RHEL4? Actually I want to have the version closest to RHEL4.
CentOS 4.4 is just an updated CentOS 4.0 which is based on the upstream SourceRPMS for RHEL4. CentOS 4 is the version, 4.4 indicates update set 4 for CentOS 4. See this link for details:
http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=34
The upstream SourceRPMS for EL4 were based on FC3 (or at least the snapshot that they started with was based on FC3 ... obviously the resulting distros are very different (rhel4 and fc3).
In basic terms, here is the upstream process.
There is a development area (formally known as rawhide ... and I still will call it that frequently). Rawhide moves forward all the time, getting new RPMS that are added on an almost daily basis. It is very similar to the debian unstable (SID) line.
At a point in time, they will freeze a snapshot and call that the RH9, FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5, FC6, Fedora7, etc. snapshot.
Also, normally one of those snapshots is also a basis for an EL version. (Usually every 3rd one)
So ...
FC7 FC6 -> RHEL5 FC5 FC4 FC3 -> RHEL4 FC2 FC1 RH9 -> RHEL3 RH8 RH7.3 RH7.2 -> RHEL2 RH7.1 RH7
One can then project that that RHEL6 would be based on the FC9 code, etc.
Also, there is sometimes a mixing of the code (as in ... some FC1 stuff made it into the RHEL3 code, some FC4 stuff made it into the RHEL4 code {mysql4 as an example}, etc.)
As far as CentOS goes, our goal is to use the Enterprise Source code (ie, the source code produced for RHEL and not the source code produced for FC) ... however, it is nice to know where that code comes from.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Theo Band wrote:
What about Centos4.4 is that similar to FC4/RHEL4? Actually I want to have the version closest to RHEL4.
RHEL4 is based off FC3. CentOS is rebuilt RHEL4 (approximately),
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 08:07:44AM -0800, Joe Pruett wrote:
from my googling around, it doesn't look there is a single motherboard that supports core 2 duo and works without patches or tweaks. is that true? the main thing we want is:
core 2 duo support 4g of 800mhz (or better) ram sata gig ether with pxe boot
we can live without pata or usb for a while.
we've tried intel 965 and asus p5b based boards with various levels of ease of install, but all required some kind of driver update, which just isn't acceptable to us. well, i guess it could be acceptable if it could be built in to a pxe boot setup, but so far i haven't found any docs to even let me understand how hard/easy that might be.
does v5 support any of these boards better?
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported ?
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported?
Depending on the chipset the board uses, some are good, others are bad.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=574506
There was a recent discussion in that thread about a few that work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:48:48AM -0500, nethub@gmail.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported?
Depending on the chipset the board uses, some are good, others are bad.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=574506
There was a recent discussion in that thread about a few that work.
Interesting thread.
But I'm more interested in Dell boxes right now. I think I'll just have to do some research.
Tkx.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 11:48:48AM -0500, nethub@gmail.com wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported?
Depending on the chipset the board uses, some are good, others are bad.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=574506
There was a recent discussion in that thread about a few that work.
Interesting thread.
But I'm more interested in Dell boxes right now. I think I'll just have to do some research.
Tkx.
Hi!
We're using Tyan Thunder K8HM (S3892G3NR, *ServerWorks BCM5785 Chipset*) with great succes using CentOS 4.4 / 64 bits. We put 2 x Opteron 275 and 4 Gigs of RAM. It runs flawlessly 5 VMWare hosts (3 CentOS + 2 Winblows inside) with free VMWare server. We'll begin to test Xen 3 soon (we need SVM support for Winblows...).
As for Dell, we had many hitches with their "not always standard" hardware. I won't say that Dell is no good but your support mileage & "upgradeability" may vary.
Guy Boisvert IngTegration inc.
Well Dell does support Redhat so I would say compatibilty with Centos is very good. You just need to be careful on what version you need weather it be 64 bit or i386 being the main ones. If you happen to get something not supported from dell I would assume it wouldn't take long until it is.
The same thing could be said for any box maker who supports Redhat. The biggest problems I seen have from people who built their boxes and the hardware wasn't supported.
As for Dell, we had many hitches with their "not always standard"hardware. I won't say that Dell is no good but your support mileage & "upgradeability" may vary.
Guy Boisvert IngTegration inc. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:57:55PM -0500, Guy Boisvert wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported?
Depending on the chipset the board uses, some are good, others are bad.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=574506
There was a recent discussion in that thread about a few that work.
Interesting thread.
But I'm more interested in Dell boxes right now. I think I'll just have to do some research.
As for Dell, we had many hitches with their "not always standard" hardware. I won't say that Dell is no good but your support mileage & "upgradeability" may vary.
Ok, sorry for the "Doh" moment.
I'm looking at X2 boxes from HP, not Dell.
My bad.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported ?
unfortunately, intel has leapfrogged amd for now, so the customer wants the fastest system they can get.
i haven't seen any comments about v5, has anyone tried that on core 2 duo boards?
and i did just stuble across a dell system (precision 390) that claims to support rhel4 and core 2 duo. has anyone else used that system succesfully?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 9:22am, Joe Pruett wrote
and i did just stuble across a dell system (precision 390) that claims to support rhel4 and core 2 duo. has anyone else used that system succesfully?
Yep. The one I have is running the i686 kernel, but x86_64 on it should work just as well.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 9:22am, Joe Pruett wrote
and i did just stuble across a dell system (precision 390) that claims to support rhel4 and core 2 duo. has anyone else used that system succesfully?
Yep. The one I have is running the i686 kernel, but x86_64 on it should work just as well.
did you have to do anything magic to get it installed? did you happen to use pxe to install? the new ethernet chips seems to be the source of most of the problems i'm fighting with core 2 duo boards.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 at 8:34pm, Joe Pruett wrote
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 at 9:22am, Joe Pruett wrote
and i did just stuble across a dell system (precision 390) that claims to support rhel4 and core 2 duo. has anyone else used that system succesfully?
Yep. The one I have is running the i686 kernel, but x86_64 on it should work just as well.
did you have to do anything magic to get it installed? did you happen to use pxe to install? the new ethernet chips seems to be the source of most of the problems i'm fighting with core 2 duo boards.
Being in Dell's Precision family, the hardware is (for the most part) pretty conservative. The ethernet chip is a BCM5754, and I kickstarted it just fine with no special options (no PXE though) when I installed it.
That being said, I *did* have a good time with the network chips in my new Xeon 5160 cluster nodes. Those are on Supermicro X7DVL-E boards with Intel 82563EB network controllers. The driver in CentOS 4.3 didn't recognize the NICs at all, and the one in 4.4 worked enough to install 'em but would intermittently decide to stop passing traffic (on eth1, at least). Installing the latest driver from intel.com (7.3.20) fixed 'em up.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
That being said, I *did* have a good time with the network chips in my new Xeon 5160 cluster nodes. Those are on Supermicro X7DVL-E boards with Intel 82563EB network controllers. The driver in CentOS 4.3 didn't recognize the NICs at all, and the one in 4.4 worked enough to install 'em but would intermittently decide to stop passing traffic (on eth1, at least). Installing the latest driver from intel.com (7.3.20) fixed 'em up.
Same thing here using Xeon 5130s and the 80003ES2LAN adapters. Nearly lost some hair over that one.
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
That being said, I *did* have a good time with the network chips in my new Xeon 5160 cluster nodes. Those are on Supermicro X7DVL-E boards with Intel 82563EB network controllers. The driver in CentOS 4.3 didn't recognize the NICs at all, and the one in 4.4 worked enough to install 'em but would intermittently decide to stop passing traffic (on eth1, at least). Installing the latest driver from intel.com (7.3.20) fixed 'em up.
Same thing here using Xeon 5130s and the 80003ES2LAN adapters. Nearly lost some hair over that one.
Here's a follow-on of an old thread...
Joshua and I have been comparing notes. We've got NICs with PCI IDs of 8086:1096 (known variously as 82563EB or 80003ES2LAN, depending on whose info you use).
In my case, the problems have cleared up with the release of CentOS 4.5 and the 2.6.9-55 kernel, which uses version 7.2.7 of the e1000 driver. By way of comparison, the 2.6.9-42.0.10.EL kernel used 7.0.33.
He hasn't been as lucky. I mentioned to him the procedure I used under previous kernels, and will repeat it here in case anyone else is seeing similar symptoms:
* Head to the Intel PRO/10/100/1000/10GbE Drivers project and grab the latest release for e1000 (e.g., e1000-7.5.5.1.tar.gz).
-> http://sourceforge.net/projects/e1000
* Identify the uname-ish version of the kernel for which you wish to build the module (e.g., 2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp).
* Unpack the tarball, and go to the src/ subdirectory.
* make BUILD_KERNEL=3D2.6.9-42.0.8.ELsmp install (using the correct target kernel's version, of course).
Joe Pruett wrote:
Humm, what about Athlon X2 motherboards ? How well are they supported ?
unfortunately, intel has leapfrogged amd for now, so the customer wants the fastest system they can get.
Only in certain scenarios, not to mention unreliable. Maybe the latest steppings have those reliability problems corrected.
from my googling around, it doesn't look there is a single motherboard that supports core 2 duo and works without patches or tweaks. is that true? the main thing we want is:
core 2 duo support 4g of 800mhz (or better) ram sata gig ether with pxe boot
My Asus P5B "Deluxe" worked out of the box with Centos 4.4. I used a SATA CDROM to load Centos 4.4 x86_64. The only "tweak" I did was load the nvidia drivers for the graphics card (the built in linux drivers work but are not very good, but that's true on all nvidias irrespective of motherboard). The skge driver for nic1 (the second one) works great. PATA will have to wait until RHEL (Centos) 5 comes along and I left the JMicron unused because there are no drivers for it yet. USB doesn't have any problem with the antique scanner we have plugged into it or with newer digital cameras and printers. Scilab and R both run very well. Scilab does not seem to benefit from the duo core, but R runs much faster. VMserver runs 32 bit windows very nicely.
The box runs 100M ether with the linux skge driver and I do not run pxe boot so I do not know if Centos 4 will provide what you need. Although the linux skge driver purports to be capable of Gig ether, you may have to use the latest from Marvell's web site to actually get to a gig. Trying to use both NIC's at the same time produced erratic results with any combination of drivers. Microsoft's (pardon the expression) optical mouse, a very overpriced nvidia graphics card, 4 SATA's, SATA DVD, raid all seem happy. Overclocking the E6600 worked with the Corsair 800Mz memory, locked up randomly under load with slower memory. 4GB is all the P5B Deluxe will take.
The lack of a proper driver for sensors ( I heard that an older driver sort of works), no PATA support, and the not-really-dual nic problem implies that installing RHEL4 or Centos4 is a short term measure before upgrading to the RHEL5 or Centos5 releases this spring. I have heard that these issues are all resolved in the RHEL5 beta, but have not actually tried the beta myself.
Be forewarned, if you run XP on top of the VMware server, you may or may not have a license (validation) issue when you upgrade to VMware on RHEL5 (Centos5) in the spring if it sees a different platform.
The P5B 'Lux performs well for math and engineering stuff, hasn't failed or hicupped yet despite a period of shaky building power. If you can get the pxe boot to work, it should roll out pretty well for workstations if that is your intended use.
Hope that helps you a little.
Ben Mohilef wrote:
Overclocking the E6600 worked with the Corsair 800Mz memory, locked up randomly under load with slower memory. 4GB is all the P5B Deluxe will take.
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory. That would mean each of the 4 slots a 2GB DDR2 module. My local shop suggests me to choose TWIN2XP2048-6400C4 (Corsair) but that are two modules of each 1GB. I downloaded the ASUS manual and it tells that 8GB memory is possible with 2GB modules but in the QVL only 1GB modules are mentioned.
I did a quick search on the internet, but couldn't find any module sized 2GB occupying a single DDR2 slot.
Background is that I want to have a motherboard that is capable of 8GB for CAD applications but my feeling is that this is not the right board to use. So is 8GB possible at all?
Thanks for any help, Theo
Hi,
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory.
I have that board. Do NOT get it for >3gb of memory.
To get >3gb of mem you need to enable "extended memory remapping" in the bios
When you do that, the system will be very very unusably slow.
I contacted support and they say the P5B-VM only supports windows, which actually yes it does say that in the manual though not on the web site where I looked before buying.
Anyway, windows users complain of the same problem.
We (linux and windows users) were all using the suggested bios 0606 (beta).
Perhaps in the future, but at this time I can say the board doesn't support 8GB of memory.
I just checked the Asus user forums where 10 of us posted on this probem and nothing has changed.
Shawn
That would mean each of the 4 slots a 2GB DDR2 module. My local shop suggests me to choose TWIN2XP2048-6400C4 (Corsair) but that are two modules of each 1GB. I downloaded the ASUS manual and it tells that 8GB memory is possible with 2GB modules but in the QVL only 1GB modules are mentioned.
I did a quick search on the internet, but couldn't find any module sized 2GB occupying a single DDR2 slot.
Background is that I want to have a motherboard that is capable of 8GB for CAD applications but my feeling is that this is not the right board to use. So is 8GB possible at all?
javajunkie wrote:
Hi,
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory.
I have that board. Do NOT get it for >3gb of memory.
To get >3gb of mem you need to enable "extended memory remapping" in the bios
When you do that, the system will be very very unusably slow.
I contacted support and they say the P5B-VM only supports windows, which actually yes it does say that in the manual though not on the web site where I looked before buying.
Anyway, windows users complain of the same problem.
We (linux and windows users) were all using the suggested bios 0606 (beta).
Perhaps in the future, but at this time I can say the board doesn't support 8GB of memory.
I just checked the Asus user forums where 10 of us posted on this probem and nothing has changed.
Shawn
So basically, Asus went cheap on the memory controllers on the board, and that's why it not only doesn't support 8GB, but it doesn't support more than 2GB with full performance.
Peter
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory.
I have that board. Do NOT get it for >3gb of memory.
To get >3gb of mem you need to enable "extended memory remapping" in the bios
When you do that, the system will be very very unusably slow.
So basically, Asus went cheap on the memory controllers on the board, and that's why it not only doesn't support 8GB, but it doesn't support more than 2GB with full performance.
um, up to 3gb seems fine. there are 4 dimms but only 3 get recognized when not using the "memory remapping" in bios which they haven't seemed to release a working version of yet. As to if and when that might be, Asus is silent.
Shawn
This is valuable information. There goes the trust I had in the shop as well :-( I read some articles also in this list about Core 2 duo, so I want to go for that. I don't care that much about having the cheapest machine available. I just want a machine capable of addressing 8GB of memory.
I notice that server boards seem to have multiple sockets and use quad core processors. They are capable of handling 16GB easily. I don't need so many horsepower in parallel. Nice for a mail or web server running hundreds of threads. I plan to run 1 or 2 heavy jobs in parallel. And I want the job to be able to acquire >4GB memory if needed. So speed is important, but it's number two on the list. First the memory size needs to be OK.
Anyone has a good advice?
AMD X2 processors? Proven solid and has no problems addressing 8GB RAM with Tyan boards.
Has anyone actually stress tested a Core 2 Duo box and seen how it handles it? I know of one instance where a large Korean portal had no problems in trials with the Xeon version of the core 2 Duo but hit major stability issues when they went live.
Theo Band wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
AMD X2 processors? Proven solid and has no problems addressing 8GB RAM with Tyan boards.
AMD is what I use up to now. ASUS A8N32-SLI board with AMD Athlon 4800+. Maximum memory I got out of it was around 3GB. What specific Tyan board would you recommend?
For 8GB, there is only one possible choice...
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tomcatk8sh.html
However, I must say that I only have experience with this board: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tomcatk8e.html
Which only goes up to 4GB.
My experience with Tyan boards are on the 2865 (K8E) above and 2881. I have had effectively zero crashes on these boards which I presume to translate to other Tyan boards made for AMD processors.
So I better make it clear that I was thinking of dualCore Opterons...I don't know if the socket 939 AMD X2 processors support 8GB of RAM. I only know that you can use a 939 X2 processor on the Tyan 2865 which has a 939 socket.
HI,
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory.
I have that board. Do NOT get it for >3gb of memory.
To get >3gb of mem you need to enable "extended memory remapping" in the bios
When you do that, the system will be very very unusably slow.
This is valuable information. There goes the trust I had in the shop as well :-(
If you do go to dell, PLEASE PLEASE go to the shop first and mention the ASUS forum (I can help you find the posts if you need) and have them tell ASUS that they are losing sales because the bios is crappy and they say no to linux [though I suspect that once the bios gets fixed for windows, that x86_64 may well indeed run under it -- I am not technically sufficient to really know].
I think the shop just didn't know the bios was crappy. They were surely working off published specs.
Anyway, one person on the asus list mentioned a GIGABYTE GA-965GM-S2. I personally can't say anything about it.
Shawn
Hi,
Nobody answered my original question, can you fill a motherboard with four DDR2 slots up to 8GB at all?
There are four dimm slots.
If they know of 2gb dimms that are supported by the board, yes you could. (actually I use 1gb dimms that are not supported according to the usermanual ...my shop suggested them and they are fine).
The Asus docs say you can.
Hmmn, the docs say 2g on each slot but only ddr2-533 and ddr-667 2gb density modules are available for this configuration. [not sure what this means -- if ddr2-800 was not available at time of printing of if that is not supported in the memory remapping).
I was trying with ddr2-800 and perhaps that is causing the issue (though no-one has suggested that).
Shawn
I will tell the shop they proposed the wrong board. I want them to do this search for me, because it should be their expertise, not mine (I admit, I just read some articles). And when this shop advises me properly, I don't mind they are not the cheapest around. It ends up that the users on this list are much more knowledgeable, so I end up doing my own research again....
Spam/Virus scanning by CanIt Pro
For more information see http://www.kgbinternet.com/SpamFilter.htm
To control your spam filter, log in at http://filter.kgbinternet.com
Spam Not spam Forget previous vote
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Spam/Virus scanning by CanIt Pro
For more information see http://www.kgbinternet.com/SpamFilter.htm
To control your spam filter, log in at http://filter.kgbinternet.com
Nobody answered my original question, can you fill a motherboard with four DDR2 slots up to 8GB at all?
Intel's DP965LT motherboard claims 8GB support with 4 DDR2 dimms. http://developer.intel.com/products/motherboard/DP965LT/index.htm
if you have 4 dimms in this chipset, you're limited to 667Mhz memory bus, with 2 dimms, and the right memory timings, you can get 800Mhz memory timings. All memory used in P965 chipsets must be 1.8V compatible.
I peeked at prices on newegg, 2x2GB dimm kits are $430-$600 each, so 8GB ram will cost between $860-$1200.
This whitepaper on 965 chipset memory technologies details the specifics of whats supported and how the memory timings interact. http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/31320702.pdf
I see nothing about any degrading above 4GB, except that 2 x 2GB DDR2-800 is supported, while 4 x 2GB runs at DDR2-667 speeds... I wonder if the previously discussed performance degrading on the Asus board was in reference to PAE required to allow 32bit OS's with > ~3GB ram ?
Note this degrading the memory clock when you fully populate all the rows is not at all uncommon. Many Opteron configurations have similar limitations.
Keep in mind that the DP965LT doesn't work with centos...
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:00 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
Nobody answered my original question, can you fill a motherboard with four DDR2 slots up to 8GB at all?
Intel's DP965LT motherboard claims 8GB support with 4 DDR2 dimms. http://developer.intel.com/products/motherboard/DP965LT/index.htm
if you have 4 dimms in this chipset, you're limited to 667Mhz memory bus, with 2 dimms, and the right memory timings, you can get 800Mhz memory timings. All memory used in P965 chipsets must be 1.8V compatible.
I peeked at prices on newegg, 2x2GB dimm kits are $430-$600 each, so 8GB ram will cost between $860-$1200.
This whitepaper on 965 chipset memory technologies details the specifics
of whats supported and how the memory timings interact. http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/31320702.pdf
I see nothing about any degrading above 4GB, except that 2 x 2GB DDR2-800 is supported, while 4 x 2GB runs at DDR2-667 speeds... I wonder if the previously discussed performance degrading on the Asus board was in reference to PAE required to allow 32bit OS's with > ~3GB ram ?
Note this degrading the memory clock when you fully populate all the rows is not at all uncommon. Many Opteron configurations have similar limitations. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Drew Weaver wrote:
Keep in mind that the DP965LT doesn't work with centos...
Ask for a second opinion on nahant's list; there are folk from Intel (and AMD) hang out there, and there's an Intel bloke there who's pretty upbeat about Linux on Intel.
I'm cross-posting, an answer may appear in the archive.
John R Pierce wrote:
Nobody answered my original question, can you fill a motherboard with four DDR2 slots up to 8GB at all?
Intel's DP965LT motherboard claims 8GB support with 4 DDR2 dimms. http://developer.intel.com/products/motherboard/DP965LT/index.htm
if you have 4 dimms in this chipset, you're limited to 667Mhz memory bus, with 2 dimms, and the right memory timings, you can get 800Mhz memory timings. All memory used in P965 chipsets must be 1.8V compatible.
I peeked at prices on newegg, 2x2GB dimm kits are $430-$600 each, so 8GB ram will cost between $860-$1200.
I noticed, they do exist!
This whitepaper on 965 chipset memory technologies details the specifics of whats supported and how the memory timings interact. http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/31320702.pdf
I see nothing about any degrading above 4GB, except that 2 x 2GB DDR2-800 is supported, while 4 x 2GB runs at DDR2-667 speeds... I wonder if the previously discussed performance degrading on the Asus board was in reference to PAE required to allow 32bit OS's with > ~3GB ram ?
That's what I understood. Not only Linux but also Windows seems to not work properly with large memory configurations. This ASUS board is no longer on my wish list.
In the mean time I contacted Dell. They proposed a Dell Precision with a Xenon 5150 processor. The price is different of course, but the memory is now fully buffered (FBD) and having 8 slots leaves room for upgrade to 32GB :-) Machine can be deliverd with RHEL4, so I trust Centos will not be a problem to install.
Theo
Theo Band wrote:
javajunkie wrote:
Hi,
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory.
I have that board. Do NOT get it for >3gb of memory.
To get >3gb of mem you need to enable "extended memory remapping" in the bios
When you do that, the system will be very very unusably slow.
This is valuable information. There goes the trust I had in the shop as well :-( I read some articles also in this list about Core 2 duo, so I want to go for that. I don't care that much about having the cheapest machine available. I just want a machine capable of addressing 8GB of memory.
I notice that server boards seem to have multiple sockets and use quad core processors. They are capable of handling 16GB easily. I don't need so many
You should be able get a lower-end one with two sockets, and you don't have to populate it fully. Nor would I decline a quad-core "because it's overkill." Your needs will increase to exceed what's available;-)
horsepower in parallel. Nice for a mail or web server running hundreds of threads. I plan to run 1 or 2 heavy jobs in parallel. And I want the job to be able to acquire >4GB memory if needed. So speed is important, but it's number two on the list. First the memory size needs to be OK.
My next stop will be Dell. Anyone has a good advice?
Umm. Ask for a money-back guarantee that it will work.
I have a Dell Optiplex GX270 with Intel graphics - not at all what you'd be using, I know. I did have RHEL5 beta1 running on it, and SUSE & SLES. but the difficulty of getting graphics to work at all put me off a little, and Fedora Core 6 works only if I don't switch between X and virtual consoles, and I generally do that dozens of times a day.
It's put me off Dell a bit.
Theo Band wrote:
Ben Mohilef wrote:
Overclocking the E6600 worked with the Corsair 800Mz memory, locked up randomly under load with slower memory. 4GB is all the P5B Deluxe will take.
Funny, I was advised to buy a ASUS P5B-VM since I need 8MB memory. That would mean each of the 4 slots a 2GB DDR2 module. My local shop suggests me to choose TWIN2XP2048-6400C4 (Corsair) but that are two modules of each 1GB. I downloaded the ASUS manual and it tells that 8GB memory is possible with 2GB modules but in the QVL only 1GB modules are mentioned.
I did a quick search on the internet, but couldn't find any module sized 2GB occupying a single DDR2 slot.
Background is that I want to have a motherboard that is capable of 8GB for CAD applications but my feeling is that this is not the right board to use. So is 8GB possible at all?
I suspect Tyan would have such a board, and you could find yourself using Xeon or Opteron.
Probably the Tier 1 vendors also have ready-to-run workstations, not necessarily IA32/AMD-64. IBM's pSeries would be worth a look.
Joe Pruett wrote:
isn't acceptable to us. well, i guess it could be acceptable if it could be built in to a pxe boot setup, but so far i haven't found any docs to even let me understand how hard/easy that might be.
Just make a new kernel and initrd image with the patches and drivers you need, and ditto on the installed RPMs. I have done it for CD-ROM installs when I needed new drivers, the procedure is the same with PXE. I just googled back then, but don't have to docs for it here.
does v5 support any of these boards better?
Yes, the 2.6.18 kernel got support new hardware.
-
Ben Mohilef -
Brent -
Drew Weaver -
Feizhou -
Guy Boisvert -
javajunkie -
Jim Perrin -
Joe Pruett -
John Hinton -
John R Pierce -
John Summerfield -
Johnny Hughes -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Mike Fedyk -
Morten Torstensen -
nethub＠gmail.com -
Paul Heinlein -
Peter Serwe -
Ralph Angenendt -
redone1224 -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Scott Silva -
Stephen Harris -
Steven Vishoot -
Theo Band -
Tom Diehl