Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #1823 > unrolled thread

Cheap ECC mobo?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Cheap ECC mobo? AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 06:45 -0700
    Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Christoph Schmees <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> - 2013-06-04 16:36 +0200
      Re: Cheap ECC mobo? AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2013-06-05 01:27 -0700
    Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-04 17:33 +0200
    Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2013-06-05 21:11 +0200
      Re: Cheap ECC mobo? AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2013-06-06 05:24 -0700
        Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-06-06 16:49 -0400
          Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-06 23:12 +0200
            Re: Cheap ECC mobo? AD <isquat@gmail.com> - 2013-06-06 23:12 -0700
              Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Octothorpe <Octothorpe@invalid.com> - 2013-06-07 09:20 -0400
              Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2013-06-07 17:04 +0200
        Re: Cheap ECC mobo? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2013-06-07 11:32 +0200

#1823 — Cheap ECC mobo?

What are my options for ecc mobo these days?

I want to build a 4 core system around the graphics card I got as a
present :-)

Intel probably, don't even know if there are amd ecc options.

tnx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1824

On 04.06.2013 15:45, AD wrote:
> What are my options for ecc mobo these days?
>
> I want to build a 4 core system around the graphics card I got as a
> present :-)
>
> Intel probably, don't even know if there are amd ecc options.
>

noemally ECC = 'server board' != cheap.
you may replace 'server board' by 'workstation board', result (!= 
cheap) is the same.

Christoph

-- 
email:
nurfuerspam -> gmx
de -> net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1826

On Jun 4, 5:36 pm, Christoph Schmees <c...@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
> On 04.06.2013 15:45, AD wrote:
>
> > What are my options for ecc mobo these days?
>
> > I want to build a 4 core system around the graphics card I got as a
> > present :-)
>
> > Intel probably, don't even know if there are amd ecc options.
>
> noemally ECC = 'server board' != cheap.
> you may replace 'server board' by 'workstation board', result (!=
> cheap) is the same.
>
Ok, so, then, what are my options for workstation boards on the
low end of the price range given that I won't skimp on ecc.

save for laptops never had a home system without it.

now I'd have to buy a low end quad xeon since i5/i7 don't support ecc
I guess

currently running asus p5e (x38) with intel 2160 and 2gb of 800mhz ecc
kingston
in it and need a second tower -> the family keeps growing

while I am at it: what are (if any) quiet sata options with 5 year
warranty

I'd skimp on sas at this point

tnx

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1825

On Tuesday 04 June 2013 15:45, AD conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> What are my options for ecc mobo these days?
> 
> I want to build a 4 core system around the graphics card I got as a
> present :-)
> 
> Intel probably, don't even know if there are amd ecc options.

Tyan does make motherboards with ECC support for both AMD and Intel, but 
they won't be cheap, and neither will ECC RAM modules be.  I know, 
because I've got a twin-socket dual-core AMD Opteron system sitting here 
with 32 GiB of ECC RAM, and you can buy a small (by European standards) 
sized car for that amount of money.  (Well, okay, it's also got a RAID 
controller and 8 hard disks, 4 of which are SAS disks.)

But hey, I can compile a fully blown kernel on it in ~50 seconds, so it 
rocks. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1827

AD <isquat@gmail.com> wrote:
>What are my options for ecc mobo these days?

Nowadays, the memory controller is in the CPU, so is the ECC option.
Intel reserves ECC for Xeon processors; AMD allows that in the basic
processors.

There are main boards that explicitly break AMD's ECC capabilities,
but those are not often found.

I'd go for AMD, ECC is possible with those for a moderate price.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1828

On Jun 5, 10:11 pm, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1...@zugschl.us> wrote:
> AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >What are my options for ecc mobo these days?
>
> Nowadays, the memory controller is in the CPU, so is the ECC option.
> Intel reserves ECC for Xeon processors; AMD allows that in the basic
> processors.
>
> There are main boards that explicitly break AMD's ECC capabilities,
> but those are not often found.
>
> I'd go for AMD, ECC is possible with those for a moderate price.
>
ok, I'm typically of low opinion about them (intel qa department
probaly
has higher head count than entire amd with subsidiaries), plus running
hackintosh on intel is much less
hassle I think

but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is
considered :-(

you have no issues with your amd based systems?

> Greetings
> Marc
> --
> -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
> Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
> Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     |http://www.zugschlus.de/
> Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1833

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:44 -0700, AD wrote:

[putolin]

> 
> but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is considered
> :-(
> 
> you have no issues with your amd based systems?
> 

No, and I have used and built amd systems since they came out.  Typically 
with less problems than intel based motherboards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1834

On Thursday 06 June 2013 22:49, Octothorpe conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:44 -0700, AD wrote:
> 
>> [...] but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is
>> considered [...]
>> :-(
>> 
>> you have no issues with your amd based systems?
> 
> No, and I have used and built amd systems since they came out. 
> Typically with less problems than intel based motherboards.

Personally I've also always had less problems with AMD-based machines 
than with Intel-based machines, so I'll add my "+1" [*] to that.


[*] That's "Me too" in AOL-speak. <grin>

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1835

On Jun 7, 12:12 am, Aragorn <thoron...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013 22:49, Octothorpe conveyed the following to
> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>
> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:44 -0700, AD wrote:
>
> >> [...] but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is
> >> considered [...]
> >> :-(
>
> >> you have no issues with your amd based systems?
>
> > No, and I have used and built amd systems since they came out.
> > Typically with less problems than intel based motherboards.
>
> Personally I've also always had less problems with AMD-based machines
> than with Intel-based machines, so I'll add my "+1" [*] to that.
>
and what's the opinion the two of you have of
all the folks insistent on spending extra on intel?

aside from the hackintosh exemption

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1839

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 23:12:41 -0700, AD wrote:

> On Jun 7, 12:12 am, Aragorn <thoron...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thursday 06 June 2013 22:49, Octothorpe conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>>
>> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:44 -0700, AD wrote:
>>
>> >> [...] but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is
>> >> considered [...]
>> >> :-(
>>
>> >> you have no issues with your amd based systems?
>>
>> > No, and I have used and built amd systems since they came out.
>> > Typically with less problems than intel based motherboards.
>>
>> Personally I've also always had less problems with AMD-based machines
>> than with Intel-based machines, so I'll add my "+1" [*] to that.
>>
> and what's the opinion the two of you have of all the folks insistent on
> spending extra on intel?
> 
) 
lemmings?
They have more money that sense?
The me to me to clan?

I have an AMD slot A 800 MHZ processor < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Slot_A > running DNS, mail and web services.  It has been in service for 
many years, well since 2000.  I am currently building a newer scratch 
built system to update it to a 3.9 kernel.  I have upgraded it to sata 
devices by install a PCI SATA drive controller which it will boot to, 
about 5 years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1840

On Friday 07 June 2013 08:12, AD conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> On Jun 7, 12:12 am, Aragorn <thoron...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 06 June 2013 22:49, Octothorpe conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>>
>> > On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:24:44 -0700, AD wrote:
>>
>> >> [...] but I guess I have twice the research to do now that amd is
>> >> considered [...]
>> >> :-(
>>
>> >> you have no issues with your amd based systems?
>>
>> > No, and I have used and built amd systems since they came out.
>> > Typically with less problems than intel based motherboards.
>>
>> Personally I've also always had less problems with AMD-based machines
>> than with Intel-based machines, so I'll add my "+1" [*] to that.
>>
> and what's the opinion the two of you have of all the folks insistent
> on spending extra on intel?

My opinion is that most people's opinions are very shallow in just about 
every aspect, and that therefore people's preference for Intel over AMD 
is just as shallow.  

Mind you that I am not saying that Intel produces bad quality stuff or 
that they are technically on the wrong path, but I believe that AMD is 
and for a long time has been greatly underappreciated on account of 
their technical innovations and quality, and AMD is also less of a 
monopolist than Intel, and has less ties with Microsoft.

Yet, the above notwithstanding as arguments, I still maintain that I've 
had less technical issues and quality issues with AMD-based machines 
than with Intel-based machines.  The machine I am sending this message 
from is AMD-based, by the way.

> aside from the hackintosh exemption

Hackintoshes are by definition illegal, simply because the OS X EULA 
stipulates that said operating system may only legally be used on an 
officially branded Apple computer.  Ergo, I cannot support the creation 
of a Hackintosh as a valid and legal argument for choosing Intel over 
AMD.

I do not agree with many existing laws, nor with the system of 
proprietary hardware/software, but the laws, the financial-economical 
society model and the patents and copyright systems all do exist 
nevertheless, so I try abiding by the law wherever possible.

-- 
= Aragorn =
  GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1837

AD <isquat@gmail.com> wrote:
>you have no issues with your amd based systems?

I have always run a healthy mixture of Intel and AMD based systems,
and aside from equally clocked Intel CPUs usually running circles
around their AMD equivalent, I have never felt any issue with either
vendor. But if one wants a moderately priced ECC system, there is no
alternative to AMD, by intel's voluntary choice.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web