Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
2013/12/26 Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
See: https://hardware.redhat.com/RHEL6
-- Eero
On 12/25/2013 7:56 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am
unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
that listing is nearly useless for this. it doesn't contain motherboards, it contains complete brand name systems that were submitted for paid testing.
On 26/12/13 06:05, John R Pierce wrote:
that listing is nearly useless for this. it doesn't contain motherboards, it contains complete brand name systems that were submitted for paid testing.
What is so bad for paid testings? If it was tested for a reasonable usage it's fine. If you have a specific benchmark in your hands share it and there are plenty of nice and well known guys out in the world who would be happy to test it just for you to make sure your tests are OK.
It seems reasonable that some "bugs" or what ever you call them will exist on any piece of software but once you test it enough and put more human resources in them it costs money or at least something equal.
Do you have something in mind? If so please post it and some nice guys around the world will test it for you in a short time.
Regards, Eliezer
On 1/1/2014 12:50 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
On 26/12/13 06:05, John R Pierce wrote:
that listing is nearly useless for this. it doesn't contain motherboards, it contains complete brand name systems that were submitted for paid testing.
What is so bad for paid testings? If it was tested for a reasonable usage it's fine.
my point is, the coverage of that hardware listing on the redhat site is woefully inadequate for the needs of the OP. NO motherboards or chipsets are listed, just complete systems, mostly servers. Even the HP DL160gen8 servers I just bought for my lab at work aren't listed.
On 01/01/14 23:09, John R Pierce wrote:
my point is, the coverage of that hardware listing on the redhat site is woefully inadequate for the needs of the OP. NO motherboards or chipsets are listed, just complete systems, mostly servers. Even the HP DL160gen8 servers I just bought for my lab at work aren't listed.
The basic assumption is that server hardware won't be changed every second to allow actual systems to work and be designed.
It would be ridiculously absurd to assume that the "desktop" hardware is compared to servers.
These servers and desktops have datasheets and basic specifications. The manufacturers do tests mainly to fit their client needs. It is expected for a specific chip-set to be similar on each and every one of the machines it's on. If there is someone that changes the scope of the hardware out of the specifications such as over-clocking or over-usage or any other way of "abusing' the hardware it is expected to not work properly or for all the protection mechanisms to not work accordingly.
Lets take for a second "Linux" as a human. Linux Desktop is a very intensive Desktop which is not like most the users in the world that sits in a office. It is very hard for many to meet Linux Desktop needs and demands. For example. Cisco servers do apply to even meet the demands of a Linux server in the form of: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps11583/
I am not sure for example that a company "xyz" that is not listed in RH Certification doesn't have the same chipset as the Cisco servers.
It doesn't even matter... This product for example: http://b2b.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4157#sp
Have basic specifications. In amazon there is a price for this specific hardware while there is an option it cannot even be delivered to your place. Sometimes there is an option in the shape of a desktop in the local store while the server is tempting.
In a case that the Linux Desktop is not demanding that much from the hardware it can be satisfied with simple specifications.
Another example is: AMD Opteron™ 6300 Series which is 64 bit compatible and should not have any issues with the kernel. I am almost sure that DDR3 memory is compatible with Linux Desktop pretty easily.
Now to leave all the other parts aside such as PSU and some others... Once a PC or a SERVER was tested by someone it means that it should work unless was damaged in any way.
Indeed the HP DL160gen8 might not be in the list.. I am sure that a Xeon CPU from the E5-2600 product family should work and meet Linux Desktop and Server.
I want to verify something: How long would it take to decide that a hardware is compatible with a software, will it be before it will overheat or after?
Thanks, Eliezer
On 1/1/2014 2:02 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Indeed the HP DL160gen8 might not be in the list.. I am sure that a Xeon CPU from the E5-2600 product family should work and meet Linux Desktop and Server.
I'm glad you're so sure (and yes in fact, it did work...), but my original point remains, the http://hardware.redhat.com listings are nearly useless.
On 02/01/14 00:13, John R Pierce wrote:
I'm glad you're so sure (and yes in fact, it did work...), but my original point remains, thehttp://hardware.redhat.com listings are nearly useless.
For who?
Eliezer
On 1/1/2014 2:56 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
On 02/01/14 00:13, John R Pierce wrote:
I'm glad you're so sure (and yes in fact, it did work...), but my original point remains, thehttp://hardware.redhat.com listings are nearly useless.
For who?
for the original poster, who was asking on this thread which motherboards would work, as the hardware.redhat.com site doesn't list motherboards.
and useless for me, when they don't include the major brand server models I might be considering for work.
On 02/01/14 01:19, John R Pierce wrote:
for the original poster, who was asking on this thread which motherboards would work, as the hardware.redhat.com site doesn't list motherboards.
and useless for me, when they don't include the major brand server models I might be considering for work.
Just to make sure I understand the question again: PC and Servers hardware is suppose to be BIOS compatible? In a case that these do comply and Linux is not supporting BIOS it's another story.
In the case that Linux do work with all BIOS systems by compiling it once I will consider myself living in the age of about 2 Millions years from now.(not about Linux but about human levels)
Any Basic Input Output System requires testing once in a while! Any BIOS design should be compatible to run all software that is based on BIOS.
Since not all hardware is made from the same piece of hardware it is assumed that some might not be compatible with Linux.
My basic assumption is that if the manufacturer of the MB specifies that it's Linux Compatible it will be supported by somebody around the place you will buy the part from. There are places around the world which still use Windows 98 since it just works for them.
The PC brands I know are: Packard-Bell, Gateway, Toshiba, HP, IBM, ASUS, INTEL, AMD, Biostar, GigaByte, IOMEGA, FUJITSU. I remember that I am missing some others but these are known to me for a working desktop for years. I also have seen lots of Custom Made\Compiled PC's which you cannot just "brand" them or even say "Chipset" X or else. IBM big servers for example do not work with any Linux version out of the box since it needs patches and Customization.
How will you use Linux OS on a 512k CPUs for example?
Every CPU and Chipset around the world was Customed made or designed by someone... A nice linux version I do like is Finnix which tends to work as a BIOS OS.(GUI is not BIOS).
I would recommend on a specific hardware if really needed..
Eliezer
On 1/1/2014 3:42 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Just to make sure I understand the question again: PC and Servers hardware is suppose to be BIOS compatible? In a case that these do comply and Linux is not supporting BIOS it's another story.
huh? the BIOS is nearly irrelevant, its code is used for phase 0 bootstrap only, and other than the ACPI tables that are used to provide info about power management capabilities. the rest of the BIOS went the way of MSDOS.
whats important know is whether or not the RHEL6 package, and by implication, CentOS6, has out of the box support for all the core IO devices on the system, its network and storage controllers for a server, and also audio and graphics for a workstation.
The BIOS is what the hardware is based upon and the testing of a Mother-Board should be started at the BIOS level.
The Basic Input Output for today hardware is basically based on USB even for many servers.
There are cases which you see a system that CentOS6 was not designed to work with. Not just that but in the level that the engineers designed this MB or it's chips to work with a specific OS or with a specific set of tools. There are other Operation Systems around the work which are not MS or Linux or FreeBSD or Unix.
There are custom OS's that do allow other operations and other levels then these.
No I do not see them every day but the reason that the Manufacturer is maintaining the Compatibility lists is to let the Desktop or Server Distributer the Benefit of understanding that this piece of software was designed to work with this specific cases.
In the case that there is a mismatch between the list and reality the human mind comes in handy.
I do really like to buy in stores I know the owner or at-least have good name.
The main issue is that one is expecting a set of results while the others do not.
When a 200Mhz server was running fine with a Linux kernel it ran fine..
Some people just don't understand what 2.2 Ghz is and what level of complexity we are talking about.
(Another squid was compiled safely)
How do we test ECC memory?
Eliezer
On 02/01/14 02:06, John R Pierce wrote:
huh? the BIOS is nearly irrelevant, its code is used for phase 0 bootstrap only, and other than the ACPI tables that are used to provide info about power management capabilities. the rest of the BIOS went the way of MSDOS.
whats important know is whether or not the RHEL6 package, and by implication, CentOS6, has out of the box support for all the core IO devices on the system, its network and storage controllers for a server, and also audio and graphics for a workstation.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of John R Pierce Sent: den 26 december 2013 05:05 To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos-compatible motherboards
that listing is nearly useless for this. it doesn't contain motherboards, it contains complete brand name systems that were submitted for paid testing.
Thanks.
That explains why I've never been able to use it to make a somewhat educated guess on what mobos/other components to get. -- //Sorin
On 12/25/2013 7:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
my build last year was on an ASRock Z77 Extreme3 board I got deeply discounted at newegg during a black friday kinda sale. I5-3570k (which runs quite stably at 4.2GHz) 16GB ram. 250GB Samsung SSD disk0. nvidia gt640 video card (I don't game, but I do like opengl stuff to perform nicely) used the same Coolermaster CM690 case and Antec PSU I already had.
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
to answer such a question is not that easy, other than, to say that most all quality mainboards of today should work and it is really up to the buyer as to what is desired as features.
requirements should be of more concern, ie;
memory - no less than 2GB0, 4GB0 to 8GB0 better. hdd - 2 drives in RAID, at least 1TB0, higher is better
mainboards today will have on board video, some will be dual monitor, if not, get a video card for dual setup, pref may be a dual monitor card and disable on board.
hdd will be sata and some have on board raid controllers.
cd/dvd burners are now single-sided single-layer disc (4GB7), single-sided double-layer disc (8GB0) and double-sided double-layer disc (17GB0). i would recommend at least 8GB0.
you can use cd/dvd for backup, better yet, DAT tape in either scsi or usb2.
because you are upgrading a box, do consider upping power supply to at least 650 watt for load you will be adding.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon,
i would also check;
http://www.portatech.com/ http://www.pricewatch.com/ http://magicmicro.com/
to make price comparisons for what you decide;
http://sale-fire.com/ http://www.calibex.com/
hth.
On 12/25/2013 11:09 PM, g wrote:
because you are upgrading a box, do consider upping power supply to at least 650 watt for load you will be adding.
huh? my system uses about 200-250 watts actual line current running full tilt, its a core i5-3570k overclocked to 4.2ghz, with 16gb ram, 1 250GB SSD and 2 3TB HDs... it also has a cuple PCI IO cards in it, and a NVidia 640 GT video card. Its got a 450W PSU, which is plenty.
the only people that need 600W+ PSUs are running two or more high end video cards
On 12/26/2013 08:17 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/25/2013 11:09 PM, g wrote:
because you are upgrading a box, do consider upping power supply to at least 650 watt for load you will be adding.
huh? my system uses about 200-250 watts actual line current running full tilt, its a core i5-3570k overclocked to 4.2ghz, with 16gb ram, 1 250GB SSD and 2 3TB HDs... it also has a cuple PCI IO cards in it, and a NVidia 640 GT video card. Its got a 450W PSU, which is plenty.
the only people that need 600W+ PSUs are running two or more high end video cards
Keep in mind that PSU nominal power is not absolute power, especially if you buy those cheep ones. Chinese 450W will give 200-300W or similar. Chieftec is another thing.
On 12/26/2013 1:34 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Keep in mind that PSU nominal power is not absolute power, especially if you buy those cheep ones. Chinese 450W will give 200-300W or similar. Chieftec is another thing.
I mostly use low-to-midrange Antec and Coolermaster supplies, so far they have performed great for me, lasted a long long time, and seem to be true to spec. AFAIK, they are all made in China.
I mostly use low-to-midrange Antec and Coolermaster supplies, so far
they have performed great for me, lasted a long long time, and seem to be true to spec. AFAIK, they are all made in China.
Maybe it is wise to install fedora and just run centos 6 under kvm virtualization ?
-- Eero
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 02:34:02PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/26/2013 2:01 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Maybe it is wise to install fedora and just run centos 6 under kvm virtualization ?
that depends entirely on your requirements and intentions.
this is my personal desktop system. I don't want to subject it to the twice-yearly version churn of Fedora (or Ubuntu or many other distros), so I use Centos, and do a major upgrade once every few years when the next major release hits the streets. I just want it to work for me without all the messing with.
Having said that, I do run Fedora on my netbooks.
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:34:42PM +0100, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 12/26/2013 08:17 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/25/2013 11:09 PM, g wrote:
because you are upgrading a box, do consider upping power supply to at least 650 watt for load you will be adding.
huh? my system uses about 200-250 watts actual line current running full tilt, its a core i5-3570k overclocked to 4.2ghz, with 16gb ram, 1 250GB SSD and 2 3TB HDs... it also has a cuple PCI IO cards in it, and a NVidia 640 GT video card. Its got a 450W PSU, which is plenty.
the only people that need 600W+ PSUs are running two or more high end video cards
Keep in mind that PSU nominal power is not absolute power, especially if you buy those cheep ones. Chinese 450W will give 200-300W or similar. Chieftec is another thing.
the PS I'll be using in this system is an existing PC POwer & Cooling 500W unit, which should be up to the task. (It has been running the existing system for something like 3-4 years, with a Phenom-II X2 and two HD and two optical drives, 24X7.)
On 12/26/2013 2:54 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
the PS I'll be using in this system is an existing PC POwer & Cooling 500W unit, which should be up to the task. (It has been running the existing system for something like 3-4 years, with a Phenom-II X2 and two HD and two optical drives, 24X7.)
what spec is it? modern systems want ATX12V v2.x, which puts almost all the power on the +12V rail. older PSU specs had more juice on the 5V side, which is almost unused nowdays. An ATX12V V1.x supply /can/ be used on a newer system, if you treat it as a smaller PSU (drawing say, no more than 350 watts from a 500W ATX12V v1.x)
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:11:10PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
On 12/26/2013 2:54 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
the PS I'll be using in this system is an existing PC POwer & Cooling 500W unit, which should be up to the task. (It has been running the existing system for something like 3-4 years, with a Phenom-II X2 and two HD and two optical drives, 24X7.)
what spec is it? modern systems want ATX12V v2.x, which puts almost all the power on the +12V rail. older PSU specs had more juice on the 5V side, which is almost unused nowdays. An ATX12V V1.x supply /can/ be used on a newer system, if you treat it as a smaller PSU (drawing say, no more than 350 watts from a 500W ATX12V v1.x)
5V 24A, 3.3V 24A, 12v (single rail) 35A.
the 12V rail can supply up to 420 W, as long as all the others are low enough not to exceed 500.
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
thanks!
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
The software raid-1 should work fine ... plenty of room for drives on that board. As long as you have a normal file system on sata dirves, it should boot. You may need to reconfigure the hardware (obviously, different network cards, audio, video, etc.)
The version of the BIOS that I currently have does have a secure boot turn off feature. (1302 x64 is my BIOS version) Looks like there are 5 newer versions of the BIOS than the one I have installed now.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:44:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
The software raid-1 should work fine ... plenty of room for drives on that board. As long as you have a normal file system on sata dirves, it should boot. You may need to reconfigure the hardware (obviously, different network cards, audio, video, etc.)
The version of the BIOS that I currently have does have a secure boot turn off feature. (1302 x64 is my BIOS version) Looks like there are 5 newer versions of the BIOS than the one I have installed now.
Johnny:
Thanks once more for the info.
one other thing I thought to ask about: my current gigabyte board, with Phenom II X2, somehow doesn't expost the Virtual extensions in the CPU in a way that VirtualBox can recognize it (I'm sure it's a VB bug, but I'd like to be rid of it), preventing installation of 64-bit VMs. Have you by any chance tried VB on that motherboard (with Centos) and noted whether it lets you install 64-bit VMs ?
Thanks once more.
Johnny:
Thanks once more for the info.
one other thing I thought to ask about: my current gigabyte board, with Phenom II X2, somehow doesn't expost the Virtual extensions in the CPU in a way that VirtualBox can recognize it (I'm sure it's a VB bug, but I'd like to be rid of it), preventing installation of 64-bit VMs. Have you by any chance tried VB on that motherboard (with Centos) and noted whether it lets you install 64-bit VMs ?
Thanks once moreJohnny:
Thanks once more for the info.
one other thing I thought to ask about: my current gigabyte board, with Phenom II X2, somehow doesn't expost the Virtual extensions in the CPU in a way that VirtualBox can recognize it (I'm sure it's a VB bug, but I'd like to be rid of it), preventing installation of 64-bit VMs. Have you by any chance tried VB on that motherboard (with Centos) and noted whether it lets you install 64-bit VMs ?
Thanks once more.
On 12/27/2013 04:16 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:44:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
Although I've always been partial to AMD chips, I'm tempted this time to find something Intel-ish, I5, quad core, or so.
In looking at mommyboards at New Egg and Amazon, I find so many I am unable to make reasonable determinations regarding suitability, so am hoping some of you who have new(ish) intel-compatible boards could offer some hints.
Also, I'd like to keep the cost of MB, CPU and RAM to no more (or little more) than $300-350. (seeing as how apparently mid-range I5 chips cost over 200 each, that may be a vain hope.)
I expect that the newest ones may work with something bleeding edge like Fedora (et al), but I like centos for my desktop since it doesn't have the ridiculous churn rate of the more aggressive distros. I can't bring myself to relish the thought of rebuilding my main desktop twice a year (or even once a year).
So, any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
The software raid-1 should work fine ... plenty of room for drives on that board. As long as you have a normal file system on sata dirves, it should boot. You may need to reconfigure the hardware (obviously, different network cards, audio, video, etc.)
The version of the BIOS that I currently have does have a secure boot turn off feature. (1302 x64 is my BIOS version) Looks like there are 5 newer versions of the BIOS than the one I have installed now.
Johnny:
Thanks once more for the info.
one other thing I thought to ask about: my current gigabyte board, with Phenom II X2, somehow doesn't expost the Virtual extensions in the CPU in a way that VirtualBox can recognize it (I'm sure it's a VB bug, but I'd like to be rid of it), preventing installation of 64-bit VMs. Have you by any chance tried VB on that motherboard (with Centos) and noted whether it lets you install 64-bit VMs ?
Thanks once more.
I use those boxes to run 64 bit VMs ... BUT ... I do not use virtualbox
I do know that with the Sempron 150, FX-6150, and FX-6350 CPUs on both Xen-4.2.x (in Xen4CentOS) and KVM I can install 64bit VMs and it sees the smx extension.
Whether or not it works with VirtualBox, I do not know.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:44:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
<snip>
I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1.
It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150.
https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
The software raid-1 should work fine ... plenty of room for drives on that board. As long as you have a normal file system on sata dirves, it should boot. You may need to reconfigure the hardware (obviously, different network cards, audio, video, etc.)
The version of the BIOS that I currently have does have a secure boot turn off feature. (1302 x64 is my BIOS version) Looks like there are 5 newer versions of the BIOS than the one I have installed now.
Ok, so I bought the board and a FX6300 CPU to go with it. pulled the swap-eroo and after some trepidation (trying to make sure I had everything plugged in correctly, so I wouldn't let the magic smoke leak out) fired it up, tweaked a bunch of BIOS settings, then did a real boot and up it came! found the Raid-1 pair, found everything and seems to be "just working".
Only problem was networking. the network config specified the MAC address, so it didn't find that port (obviously, since it isn't there anymore) and it then manufactured an eth1 (as if from whole cloth), which got an address from DHCP and networking is up. but since I run a mail server on that box, it needs its static IP address so the forwarded port 25 will work. to fix this had to work thru 2 or 3 issues but after head-banging for a couple hours got it all straightened out.
thanks for the hints on what seems a good board!
My Folding At Home client seems to be screaming right along, too!
Fred
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 01:41:49PM -0500, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:44:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
<snip> > >> I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus > >> M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... > >> everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1. > >> > >> It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron > >> 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150. > >> > >> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
Oh, one more question: sensors_detect doesn't find any sensors for lm_sensors to work with. Are you using (or do you know of) any other tools to monitor board temps (etc) ??
One of the nicest features is it will detect and set a working BIOS memory timing with a press of a button on the board ... if you try something manually that is incompatible, a simple press of the button and reboot will get you back to a working config.
Johnny:
I assume it has UEFI and "secure boot"? did you disable the secure boot feature before installing? (AFAIK Centos doesn't yet support UEFI/secure boot????)
I have an existing pair of drives holding Centos in a software Raid-1 configuration, and I'm assuming I can simply move them to the new board, boot and be off to the races. Can you comment on that assumption?
The software raid-1 should work fine ... plenty of room for drives on that board. As long as you have a normal file system on sata dirves, it should boot. You may need to reconfigure the hardware (obviously, different network cards, audio, video, etc.)
The version of the BIOS that I currently have does have a secure boot turn off feature. (1302 x64 is my BIOS version) Looks like there are 5 newer versions of the BIOS than the one I have installed now.
Ok, so I bought the board and a FX6300 CPU to go with it. pulled the swap-eroo and after some trepidation (trying to make sure I had everything plugged in correctly, so I wouldn't let the magic smoke leak out) fired it up, tweaked a bunch of BIOS settings, then did a real boot and up it came! found the Raid-1 pair, found everything and seems to be "just working".
Only problem was networking. the network config specified the MAC address, so it didn't find that port (obviously, since it isn't there anymore) and it then manufactured an eth1 (as if from whole cloth), which got an address from DHCP and networking is up. but since I run a mail server on that box, it needs its static IP address so the forwarded port 25 will work. to fix this had to work thru 2 or 3 issues but after head-banging for a couple hours got it all straightened out.
thanks for the hints on what seems a good board!
My Folding At Home client seems to be screaming right along, too!
Fred
-- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- The Lord detests the way of the wicked but he loves those who pursue righteousness. ----------------------------- Proverbs 15:9 (niv) ----------------------------- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 02/02/2014 12:44 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Oh, one more question: sensors_detect doesn't find any sensors for lm_sensors to work with. Are you using (or do you know of) any other tools to monitor board temps (etc) ??
Sorry, did not see this until now (was off at FOSDEM).
I did not try to set up lm_sensors, so I am not actively monitoring temps on these. I do have 2 of them running on boxes where I run lots of VMs and I have not had any temperature related entries in the logs.
On 02/02/14 18:44, Fred Smith wrote:
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 01:41:49PM -0500, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:44:02PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/27/2013 07:11 AM, Fred Smith wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:40:43AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 12/25/2013 09:51 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
Hi all!
I'm toying with the idea of spending some Christmas money on a new MB and CPU to upgrade my desktop.
<snip> >>> I personally have recently built 2 different systems with with the Asus >>> M5A99X Evo R2.0 motherboard. This one does not have a graphics card ... >>> everything does work with CentOS-6.5 and RHEL7B1. >>> >>> It uses AMD CPUs and I have used several AM3+ CPUs, including Sempron >>> 100, FX-6150, and FX-8150. >>> >>> https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M5A99X_EVO_R20/
Oh, one more question: sensors_detect doesn't find any sensors for lm_sensors to work with. Are you using (or do you know of) any other tools to monitor board temps (etc) ??
Do you know what sensor chip is on the board? It might be possible to use an updated driver for the hwmon sensor from elrepo.
I can't find any mention in the motherboard docs. However, hunting around online, it appears to use an ITE Super I/O chip (it8721). This is supported by the updated it87 driver (kmod-it87) from elrepo. If after installing this updated driver, sensors-detect still doesn't detect the chip, you might need to pull a later version of the sensors-detect script from a newer version of lm_sensors.
Hope that helps.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:09:57PM +0000, Ned Slider wrote: <snip>
Do you know what sensor chip is on the board? It might be possible to use an updated driver for the hwmon sensor from elrepo.
I can't find any mention in the motherboard docs. However, hunting around online, it appears to use an ITE Super I/O chip (it8721). This is supported by the updated it87 driver (kmod-it87) from elrepo. If after installing this updated driver, sensors-detect still doesn't detect the chip, you might need to pull a later version of the sensors-detect script from a newer version of lm_sensors.
Hope that helps.
Thanks,Ned! I'll take a look into that soon.
fred
-
Eero Volotinen -
Eliezer Croitoru -
Fred Smith -
g -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Johnny Hughes -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Ned Slider -
Sorin Srbu