×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Best Motherboards With Large RAM Capacity?

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the when-more-is-more dept.

Upgrades 161

cortex writes "I routinely need to analyze large datasets (principally using Matlab). I recently 'upgraded' to 64-bit Vista so that I can access larger amounts of RAM. I know that various Linux distros have had 64-bit support for years. I also typically use Intel motherboards for their reliability, but currently Intel's desktop motherboards only support 8GB of RAM and their server motherboards are too expensive. Can anyone relate their experiences with working with Vista or Linux machines running with large RAM (>8GB)? What is the best motherboard (Intel or AMD) and OS combination for workstation applications in terms of cost and reliability?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

161 comments

God I hate fake tits (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873348)



God I hate fake tits. I hate mobos with four lousy slots. Little tits are better than fake tits.

Re:God I hate fake tits (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873488)

You some piece of shit euro trash where hairy armpits and legs are everyday hazards? Breasts are MADE to be BIG! Like the BACKside! Only you can't get a butt IMPLANT! Anyone CAN shave her armpits and legs!

Tyan? (3, Informative)

therufus (677843) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873354)

Have you looked into Tyan mainboards. They're more for the server market, which is really what you're aiming for.

Re:Tyan? (4, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873660)

I would concur. Tyan Opteron motherboards are probably the best choice for this. The only annoyance is that most of them are EATX and fit only in high end huge cases.

The other thing to do is to abandon Windows. Matlab behaves considerably better on Linux or Solaris than on Windows (especially on big data sets). Most Matlab users I know have long stopped trying to run it on Microsoft platforms. They are simply not fit for purpose. AFAIK Vista is no exemption. So if you really make a living off matlab you should move your other windows stuff onto a cheap and cheerfull small PC and switch the matlab monster to a "proper" OS. That is the way I have maintained it for my matlab users in the past and they have been happy with the arrangement.

Re:Tyan? (2, Informative)

Erpo (237853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875964)

If you're running Matlab on Linux, you'd better pick one version of one Linux distribution and make sure the version of Matlab you're using supports it. If you change distros or get updates, expect problems, like crashes when you multiply [1,0]*[1;0].

If you're a free software advocate, you could blame this on the mathworks for not providing the source to Matlab so that it can be endlessly tweaked and rebuilt to keep up with FOSS development.

If you've got any common sense, you can blame this on OSS developers who do things like making binary incompatible changes to libraries and doing nothing to make sure old programs don't accidentally load the new, incompatible libs. It doesn't make one iota of difference if it's "wrong" for a program to access errno directly! There are programs that depend on being able to do it, and taking away "extern int errno" breaks those programs (including Matlab).

Then there was that whole NPTL mess. *sigh*

Re:Tyan? (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877542)

....The other thing to do is to abandon Windows. Matlab behaves considerably better on Linux or Solaris than on Windows (especially on big data sets). Most Matlab users I know have long stopped trying to run it on Microsoft platforms. They are simply not fit for purpose. AFAIK Vista is no exemption. So if you really make a living off matlab you should move your other windows stuff onto a cheap and cheerfull small PC and switch the matlab monster to a "proper" OS. That is the way I have maintained it for my matlab users in the past and they have been happy with the arrangement.
I been craming quite a bit of ram in my Sunblade, the thing to remember is only a fool buys their Sun memory from SUN or a vendor, ebay has tons of it cheap at prices comparable to OEM PC memory prices.

Tyan (5, Informative)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873362)

Look no further then Tyan. The Tempest line (Intel CPUs) can hold 32GB of ram and the Thunder line (AMD CPUs) can hold 64GB of ram.

Now I am curious about one thing you said about Intel mobos:

and their server motherboards are too expensive
If you are too cheap to buy a mobo that in your own words was "reliable, and solid", how the heck are you going to pay for the 32GB of ECC RAM?

I run a Tyan Thunder with two Opteron 270's (and 4GB of RAM) as my primary workstation, and I have never been happier. I can honestly say that this is the last workstation I will buy until it dies, I no longer need to worry about "but my computer can't run X".

With the memory sizes and data sets that you are talking about I wouldn't consider anything other then AMD CPU's. The bandwidth that the CPU and memory are shared on Intel boards, and each AMD cpu has a dedicated memory controller and dedicated RAM slots.

You posted this on /. so you know that Linux will be the preferred OS.

Go with AMD, you won't be disappointed.

Re:Tyan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873432)

> Go with AMD, you won't be disappointed.
Yeah, but dont go with tyan, you will be disappointed

Re:Tyan (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873638)

Go with AMD, you won't be disappointed.
Yeah, but dont go with tyan, you will be disappointed
Since you haven't bothered giving even a basic justification for this "opinion", and also that you're posting as an AC, I doubt many people will take this seriously. Probably a troll anyway.

Re:Tyan (4, Informative)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873786)

Funny thing about this, actually.

I jumped on the dual-processor bandwagon pretty much the instant that commodity CPUs officially supported it. Namely, the Athlon MP. I got a Tyan Tiger motherboard and a friend did the same. Shortly thereafter I lost contact with that friend.

A few years later I went to turn on my computer as usual and it wouldn't turn on. A bit of troubleshooting later and I realized that the PSU connector had burned itself into the motherboard power socket because something on the motherboard had randomly decided to short itself. Four of the pins had fried (in a distinctive pattern, see here [nyud.net] and here [nyud.net]) and I ended up buying a new motherboard from a different manufacturer and a new power supply (thankfully, the other components had survived fine.)

About a year after that I ran into my friend. We were talking about upgrades and I dug out those pictures. Turned out he'd lost three Tyan Tiger motherboards, with the exact same burn pattern, before changing manufacturers.

So, yeah, I'm not touching Tyan again. I've never actually had a computer component burn itself to death before, and one time was enough.

Re:Tyan (3, Interesting)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873826)

A few years later I went to turn on my computer as usual and it wouldn't turn on. A bit of troubleshooting later and I realized that the PSU connector had burned itself into the motherboard power socket because something on the motherboard had randomly decided to short itself. Four of the pins had fried (in a distinctive pattern, see here and here)

What make/model of PSU were you using? Looks to me that the PSU's power connector couldn't cope with the current the board was pulling. Of course, that may or may not be down to a fault on the board, but seeing as you haven't told us anything about the PSU, I'm betting you were using a cheapo one that came with the case you were using.

Re:Tyan (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875886)

Looks to me that the PSU's power connector couldn't cope with the current the board was pulling.


Well, obviously. The issue is why was the board drawing such an abormally large current through it in the first place.

Re:Tyan (1)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877358)

It may not have been an 'abnormally large current' just one that was too much for the build specifications of the PSU in use. Not all PSUs are created equal.

Re:Tyan (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21878008)

High-end PSU (500w I believe, I forget the maker - I'm obviously not using it anymore and this was two entire computer upgrade cycles ago.)

Remember that it was working fine for years, and remember that the pins were actually [i]burnt[/i] - it's hard for an inadequate PSU to burn pins on the mobo if the mobo itself isn't helping quite a lot.

Re:Tyan (4, Interesting)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874100)

S2460?

I just went through the same thing in late October.I built the system in June, 2002. Had a problem with the initial power supply (Antec 430W) that came in my case not being big enough and I was getting random lockups. Switched to another power supply and everything was fine for years. I went away for a weekend and sshed in to read my email. On my way home, a friend called me and noticed that I wasn't logged onto AIM. Hmm, ssh was still up. I must have gotten disconnected and it didn't full reconnect right (gaim likes to do that from time to time).

So I get home and notice that my computer had rebooted rather than having a simple AIM disconnect. Odd, but whatever. A week goes by and no problems. I attribute it to a freak power problem since I notice my UPS battery isn't holding a charge. Suddenly, my computer reboots in the middle of playing nethack. Ok, that was weird. Power failure is set to turn the computer off, not reboot. Computer hangs before LILO runs. I reset it and it hangs at LILO again. Odd. So I take the side of the case off to make sure the CPU/GPU fans are spinning. No problems. I let it sit for a few minutes. Turn it on and everything is fine again.

I grumble about losing my nethack game and start anew. I get about 5 minutes in and my computer reboots again. This time, LILO starts loading Linux and the computer reboots before the image is uncompressed. It does the same thing again. I start smelling that aroma of burning electric and plastic. Ok, it's too late to deal with this. I power off for the night and decide to come back in the morning.

Same problem in the morning, as soon as the computer gets warm, it starts rebooting. Electrical smell is getting heavier. I start taking PCI cards and drives out to make sure they aren't causing a problem. I swap in a known working video card and that's the only thing connected to the motherboard. Same problem. Ok, maybe the power supply is flaking out. I go to disconnect it from the motherboard and it was stuck pretty good. Bad enough that I had to get out some pliers and really start yanking.

Exact same pattern as you, all the red (5V) connectors are burned out. Fearing the worst, I ordered parts for a new computer. Later that night, I decided to see how bad the problem really was. I took a scalpel and small finger drill and cleaned all the melted plastic out of the motherboard connector until I could plug my backup power supply in. Some quick testing showed everything worked, so I reassembled it and used it for a week until my new parts got here.

I think what happened, in my case, is that the UPS batteries went bad (I've since replaced them) and the minor power fluctuations caused something to burn out in the power supply, which in turn, affected the current it was providing. It's worth noting the rating on my power supply says it provides 42A across the 5V wires, so we're talking some significant juice to start with.

That said, it is interesting that we've all had the same failure result.

Re:Tyan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21877122)

Something you might check for is bulging capacitors. While you may have a more serious problem causing it, the last mobo I had providing those symptoms turned out to have a half dozen bulging capacitors on it, leading me to attribute most of the problems I'd had with it to them.

Just something to keep in mind next time you see somethign like that.

Given a good soldering iron, desoldering iron,, and some quality replacement caps, it all works out fine.

Re:Tyan (1)

phantomlord (38815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877440)

Bad capacitors were my initial suspicion, especially since the board is from that bad stolen capacitor formula era... but all the caps on the motherboard look fine(I checked then and just double checked now).

I just cracked open that power supply for fun and the two biggest caps are slightly bulging and 4 of the 5 medium sized caps are almost domed. The small and tiny caps all look fine.

I'm still leaning toward my problem being with the power supply, but there may also be some kind of defect in the board design which is triggering these faults in general.

Re:Tyan (3, Informative)

toddestan (632714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874382)

I jumped on the dual-processor bandwagon pretty much the instant that commodity CPUs officially supported it. Namely, the Athlon MP.

Wandering off-topic, but you were kind of late for that bandwagon. Dual processors was supported by the original Pentium, though the Athlon MP might have been the first attempt by AMD to do so.

Re:Tyan (3, Interesting)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874864)

Yup, I was using 2 Intel 366 MHz Celeron processors (overclocked to 550MHz) back in high school, using an Abit BP6 motherboard. At $30 apiece for the processors and picking up the motherboard for $70 at a trade show, it wasn't a bad deal at the time for a gigahertz when most people were running less than half of that.

Re:Tyan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21875116)

Yup, I was using 2 Intel 366 MHz Celeron processors (overclocked to 550MHz) back in high school, using an Abit BP6 motherboard.


Yup.. I had mine clocked to 450MHZ and used to read bp6.com.. but it should be noted that Celerons came out around Pentium II. There were Tyan boards that would allow the now fossilized non-MMX Pentium I to run in dual configuration.

NCR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21875528)

There were not quite standard NCR machines that ran 4+ 486 cpus, back in the day,,,, The first "real" SMP systems i recall were pentium 100 generation, but there were probably openMP spec machines available before that at new car prices.

I still wish i'd had a transputer...

Re:Tyan (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876750)

Yup.. I had mine clocked to 450MHZ and used to read bp6.com.. but it should be noted that Celerons came out around Pentium II. There were Tyan boards that would allow the now fossilized non-MMX Pentium I to run in dual configuration.

Oh, yeah, I'd hang out on bp6.com as well. And you of course are right. I was working for a company that manufactured hospital software, working as a 'junior network administrator' (spent most of my day re-installing NT3.5/4.0 on broken/repurposed machines), and yes, we had a few servers that were dual Pentiums, you know, the processor on the card that plugged into the motherboard with the heatsink built in. I always thought that was a dumb design I'm glad Intel came around :)

Re:Tyan (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876514)

I had one of those. One by one over the course of a few months all the power to fain headers on board died.

I used it for months with cover off the case and a box fan from home depot pointed at it.

I can't remember why I finally quit using it....

Re:Tyan (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875740)

I have an old Tyan mobo in an AT (not ATX) case, in the garage gathering dust, that has a pair of 133 MHz Pentiums in it, and something like 32 MB of RAM. Yes, dual processors were around for quite a while. Maybe the OP mean "dual core".

Re:Tyan (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874716)

Heh, I've seen that before [aagh.net]. This was an Antec PSU connected to an EpoX motherboard (a single socket SoA) with a couple of doming capacitors. It melted part of the ATX connector into the motherboard socket (these are the 5v lines, same as yours); the board still worked, but it had some stability issues, and the 5v line reading from the on-board sensors was sagging badly (unsurprisingly; much of it's clearly being lost as heat).

I gave the board to a more electrically oriented friend; he cleaned up the socket, and still uses the board today. I don't use Antec PSU's any more, though.

Re:Tyan (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877904)

The pics were great. But that can happen with mobos that have a lot of power requirements and the connectors are "cheap" or seat poorly on the mobo pins. For example, the main 5v line might have 40 amps through it. If the surface contact area of the power supply contacts don't have enough surface areas touching the mobo contacts, it can and will overheat. That is the quality of the power supply connector and it's seating into the motherboard likely had a lot to do with this. But it is also why they went to multiple connectors for power on newer systems as that connector is pushed to it's design limit.

Re:Tyan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21874292)

um, i'm sorry but i'm pretty sure xp and vista both have a 3.1-3.9gb limit on ram usage.. even if you stuffed 4 gigs into a vista box you may only be able to use about 3gigs of that anyway.

Re:Tyan (2, Informative)

Bastardchyld (889185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876816)

To elaborate a little more on the previous answer. This memory limitation is not a limitation with xp/vista this is a memory limitation with 32 bit xp/vista. If you are using 64 bit xp/vista the 3+gb limit disappears.

-matt

Re:Tyan (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877394)

Also, this is not a limit on the server editions. As far back as win 2000 advanced server could 'use' more than 4 gigs of memory, but with a limit of 4 gigs per process. I'm not sure when linux go the ability to do that on 32 bit x86, but it was right around the same time. See wiki for more details [wikipedia.org]

Re:Tyan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21874454)

TYAN S4987WG2NRI2 QUAD SOCKET F 1207 NVIDIA NFP 3600 PCIE 8XSAS IB LSI 1068E8-PORT SAS / INFINIBAND ON-BOARD / MT25204A0-FCC DDR
128GB RAM Max. 4-Quad cores (means about 8GB per core Avg.) or 16 total cores

Re:Tyan (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874914)

I'm running a Tyan Thunder K8WE [tyan.com] with 8GB and a pair of 275's using FreeBSD. Excellent expansion, solid hardware, and well liked [k8we.com], though getting on a little bit; you might like to look at some of the newer Socket F options.

These boards aren't cheap, though; here in the UK you're looking at ~£250, which looks to be about the same as Xeon motherboards. You have specialist needs, suck it up.

I doubt the need for that much ram. (3, Interesting)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873368)

Is your working set honestly over 8GB? Your dataset might be extremely large... but I would think that for the most part you'd get along just fine with swapping out to a decently fast device and your working set would be considerably below 8GB.

Consider swapping to and from a flash device or a series of flash devices. That will get you better latency over a spindle. If you want bandwidth though, you'll need to go with a hard drive. I find it very unlikely even with matlab (bloated as it is) that you honestly will improve performance considerably with >8GB of physical memory... Then again, I have no idea how good Vista is at swapping these days. But they talked about ReadyBoost and all that, so I assume it doesn't suck at it completely. :)

If you really are worried about I/O performance, you should consider getting multiple chips (and cores, but mostly multiple chips) so you have more L1/L2 cache available to access. Though this assumes your applications are somewhat parallelizable...

Generally this question is a lot more complex than simply assuming throwing more ram in the box is going to be the best use of your money.

Battleship (3, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873414)

>Consider swapping to and from a flash device or a series of flash devices.

Good performance [nextlevelhardware.com]. Gets expensive though. $7000 for nine Mtron 16GB Solid State Drives alone, then you need very high end RAID cards to cope with the throughput.

Re:Battleship (1)

bgat (123664) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874070)

Indeed. For that kind of coin, just get enough RAM to eliminate the need to swap altogether instead. And with the money you still have left over, rent someone to babysit the dataset-crunching while you sip something cold on a sunny beach somewhere. (Posted from Midwest USA, where we've been below 32F for a while now!).

Re:Battleship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21875196)

i live in south bend and we got 5-6 inches last night and its snowing again!!

Re:Battleship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21876830)

"south bend" "got 5-6 inches last night"

That's a joke waiting to hapen.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873418)

Is your working set honestly over 8GB? Your dataset might be extremely large... but I would think that for the most part you'd get along just fine with swapping out to a decently fast device and your working set would be considerably below 8GB.
What on earth are you basing that on? Someone says they need/want 8gb plus but your argument is that he doesn't?

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873464)

people usually go to the doctors and ask for antibiotics when all they need is some good rest and tlc. it's good to have a varied responses.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873712)

It's good to have varied responses from people who are actually knowledgeable. Instead we have people who are extrapolating from their limited experience just to hear themselves talk. ("I ain't never needed 16 GB of RAM on my gamer workstation. Why would anyone need that much RAM?") Ask Slashdot is mostly just people arguing with/making fun of the questioner. I'm surprised people still submit questions at all.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873852)

It doesn't help that the average Ask Slashdot question could be answered in 5 minutes with Google.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877634)

I think it's presumptuous of you to assume that I lack enough knowledge to provide a suggestion that he examine his I/O hierarchy closer to ensure that additional RAM will actually yield the performance he's after.

This isn't making fun of the questioner, nor even arguing with him.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873438)

Maybe his dataset is larger than 8gigs. That would explain why he's asking about high memory motherboards.

Besides, having gobs of ram just plain kicks ass. One of my work machines has 16gigs, I love it!

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877652)

It very well might be.

But it also might be that he's a fellow like you who simply is after more RAM so he can go on slashdot and talk about how much he loves having a machine with 16GB of ram in it.

I find that the latter is far more likely among the folks that aren't willing to purchase a server board when they're buying a new system...

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (4, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873628)

I love that attitude...

Some guy comes and asks an honest question. Then people go and tell him that can't be right and then go and give all kinds of suggestions taking into account that he isn't right.

Let's just for a second assume that the OP has a dataset that large. I can easily imagine it:

- complicated physics model
- computational biology problem
- datamining

and any one of a thousand other not so trivial computational problems.

If his 'luck' is the problem is not trivially parallelizable (I hope that's spelled right) then he's got two choices:

1) try to set up some kind of pipeline
2) get a single machine that can handle all the data

Apparently he has chosen for door #2 because that seems to be just about feasible.

There are some top of the line dell machines that will hold up to 128G of ram, the R900 series.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874460)

If it's that kind of data, then it's really worth paying more for a solid workstation class board. And it almost assures you of ECC compatibility. ECC isn't necessary for home use and gaming, but if you have a need for 8GB+ of memory, then you probably should protect that data, and it's not terribly expensive either, in my opinion, last year's FB-DIMM pricing notwithstanding, but even that's very affordable now too.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874704)

I was about to ask something about ECC myself for a system with 4 GB RAM. I've seen the prices and shuddered as its being considered for SOHO use. Would ECC help prevent bit-flipping errors or would my money be better spent elsewhere when building a new system (e.g. better power supply)? I would think that higher or over-clocked memory could cause more 'errors' then would be accounted for from bit-flipping.

As a SOHO user, my understanding is that random bit flips while writing data can cause major problems down the road like when restoring from a backup if the original or backup file were bit-flipped at some time. I can't recall ever having a problem with a file I've restored or helped others restore so I know this to still be a rare instance in a SOHO environment. But my computer is quite an important tool (as I'm sure it is for most people) and holds many important files. Does it make sense to get ECC to help prevent bit-flipping in backups? I usually RAR and PAR my important files and copy using rsync (with error checking). And, similar to original parent's question, I also use large data sets with math programs at home (more for learning and nothing serious).

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875222)

ECC might not be that important for you. ECC memory only helps resist bit flipping while the data is in memory. It won't make your backups much more reliable as it's mostly the reliability of the medium, when backing up, the amount of time data is in memory during the transfer is very short. If you keep gigabytes of data in RAM for days at a time, or if the data is valuable, then ECC would be one step, in conjunction with mirrored or RAID-5 storage and off-line backups.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0, Troll)

taskiss (94652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874574)

Asks an honest question? He wants to populate a mobo with greater than 8 GB of RAM and wants to go "cheap"? An honest question would be to ask how to maximize his value while performing the task he then explains. Considering what he wants to do and how he's thinking about doing it, I'm guessing he's a college kid with a tech fantasy.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (3, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875882)

even the not-so-wealthy can have skills that allow them to ask difficult questions but may not have a corresponding budget.

I used to be in that position. Now I run my more interesting software on a 5 node dual opteron cluster (small for a cluster, I know... see that's those budget constraints again), each node has 8G of ram and 3TB storage. Before that it was 10 pentium machines at 600 Ghz (See http://clustercompute.com/ [clustercompute.com] , which has inspired numerous people to build copies) and before that it was 10 pentium 225's (overclocked 200's :) ). What used to take weeks now takes at the most days. My applications are mostly in datamining, but I find computational biology to be very interesting.

You have to love it when people overcome their financial limitations with cleverness, why not give the guy a break and simply help him to solve his problem, starting out from the assumption that his problems and limitations are real.

It would have been nice to have a few more bits of information about the kind of data and the nature of the calculations, I'm pretty sure that 'cheap' is also relative but it seems that cheaper is better for this guy. How many people are at their most brilliant periods in their lives when they're also poor is not easy to figure out but I would not be surprised if it was the majority.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876938)

Well, that and right now even premium memory is crazy cheap - you can pick up 2G sticks of Kingston for $40 apiece at NewEgg, when two or three years ago we were paying twice the money for a fourth of the memory (like $80 for 512M). All of a sudden big boxes become viable options, upgrading to 8G of quality memory for less than $200.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (4, Interesting)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875940)

Maybe he figured that most everyone else would answer his direct question, but he thought might have deeper insight into the problem?

I don't know how many times I've been focused on a problem for a long time, ventured down a solution path, and ended up asking for help for something complicated; only to have that guy ask me what I was thinking. When I explained the problem, it turns out I had missed something that drastically reduced it.

Sort of like the ol' America space pen vs. Russian Pencil story.

In other words, he was getting at the underlying concern, not the question asked. (think "Do I look fat?"... that's really not what they're asking)

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (2, Funny)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876924)

Sort of like the ol' America space pen vs. Russian Pencil story.

Which is a myth [snopes.com]. Do you have any more pearls of wisdom?

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 6 years ago | (#21878012)

I wasn't meaning to represent it as the truth. I assumed everyone here already knew. (Otherwise I would have actually told the story)

The moral of the story was the point.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877684)

Where did I tell him he can't be right? I told him he *might* not be right.

I then explained that he might find better performance improvements by addressing other portions of his memory hierarchy first. Just because you seem to assume the only place for improvement is in the expansion of RAM capacity doesn't mean that some people couldn't be better served with faster swap or more L1 instead. If his working set was a terrabyte then it's not likely to fit in any amount of RAM he's got in his budget and his best bet might be to improve his swap performance and use an operating system with very tuned read-ahead functionality for his type of application.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (2, Insightful)

16384 (21672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873726)

Is your working set honestly over 8GB? Your dataset might be extremely large... but I would think that for the most part you'd get along just fine with swapping out to a decently fast device and your working set would be considerably below 8GB.

When doing computer simulations it's really easy to need that much RAM. I currently have 4 GB (2xQuad Xeons on a Tyan motherboard -- To the OP: Get Opterons instead if you can), but could sometimes use much more. Swap is not an options: When the memory hits the swap the performance simply drops to pathetic levels.

In computational physics you are in a constant struggle between the need for more accuracy and the limits of the machine.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21875948)

When doing computer simulations it's really easy to need that much RAM. I currently have 4 GB (2xQuad Xeons on a Tyan motherboard -- To the OP: Get Opterons instead if you can), but could sometimes use much more. Swap is not an options: When the memory hits the swap the performance simply drops to pathetic levels.

Yup. Swap is orders of magnitude slower than RAM. When I was doing data mining work, I calculated that a job that would take a few hours if the data set fit in half the installed RAM would take weeks if it didn't. OO Language overhead was the least of our problems.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873778)

Flash might give you better latency than a HD. It's a very far shot from a proper DRAM memory controller, if only so due to the fact that it will be connected by the SATA bus. Hey, any data transfer from flash will need to go through DMA! If the problem is not inherently serial, latency is very expensive and even the hughest CPU cache might help little. The fact that he uses Matlab also (might) indicate that this prototyping, or at least "once-off" analysis. You don't want to optimize heavily for memory locality and VM-friendly prefetching if you can just throw more hardware at the problem and get a solution.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877706)

Absolutely. Flash is of limited use, but if he was having a capacity problem and a limited budget there are instances where it could significantly improve performance for random data access over an extremely large dataset.

A different algorithm may be needed (1, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873870)

Is your working set honestly over 8GB? Your dataset might be extremely large... but I would think that for the most part you'd get along just fine with swapping out to a decently fast device and your working set would be considerably below 8GB.

My thoughts exactly. When doing physics simulations, one often needs to manually optimize the code in order to use the cache correctly, so optimizing the swap shouldn't be such a problem.


Personal computers do not have support for more than 8 GB for a good reason, there isn't I/O capacity to use that much memory. There's no use having memory if you cannot transfer data to and from it.


However, the problem is that he uses Matlab. Perhaps he could get better performance using Octave [gnu.org] with Atlas [sourceforge.net] optimization, but in the end, only compiling in C with assembly language optimization will guarantee the best results. I have heard from several people that Matlab has problems when the data sets become large.


Re:A different algorithm may be needed (2, Insightful)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874002)

However, the problem is that he uses Matlab. Perhaps he could get better performance using Octave [gnu.org] with Atlas [sourceforge.net] optimization, but in the end, only compiling in C with assembly language optimization will guarantee the best results. I have heard from several people that Matlab has problems when the data sets become large.
Well, looking at the price list [mathworks.com], switching to octave should buy him a good deal more hardware, even if the performance is the same :)

Re:A different algorithm may be needed (1)

try_anything (880404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877220)

Personal computers do not have support for more than 8 GB for a good reason, there isn't I/O capacity to use that much memory.
Sure there is, if you're using all 8GB over and over in an unpredictable pattern. You can't optimize memory access unless you can predict it. That means insight into the problem and insight into the data, combined with intelligent reorganization of the data, either in preprocessing or at run-time.

Given the information we have, as far as I can see you can only argue against needing more than 8GB by arguing that 1) it's implausible that his problem might be resistant to such optimizations, and 2) it's implausible that buying 16GB of RAM is a better solution than doing the R&D to discover and implement the optimizations.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

dan dan the dna man (461768) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873912)

Without you having any idea of what his dataset is, how can you suggest that he doesn't need that amount of RAM? I have a machine in one of my racks with 32GB RAM set aside for when the machines with 8GB RAM and however many GB of swap just don't hack it anymore with our datasets in MATLAB. I'm a bioinformatician/computational biologist, and compared to some of the sciences I don't think our datasets are 'large' but they sometimes certainly require large amounts of memory to process.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877614)

> Without you having any idea of what his dataset is, how can you suggest that he doesn't need that amount of RAM?

I certainly can suggest it.

I'm not telling the OP that they don't need more ram, I'm simply suggesting that they take a close look and ensure they actually do. Given the way the question has been written, this is the OP's first foray into getting this type of machine and the OP might just want to reconsider their original premise that this is what they need. Then I provided a series of suggestions on alternatives that might be suitable *if* the OP finds that they don't actually need this entire set of data in physical memory.

I don't see why everyone thinks I'm evil simply for suggesting that perhaps the OP's original question is flawed.

Traditional Flash Poor Choice for Swap (1)

DDumitru (692803) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876186)

Flash devices are fast at small reads but very slow at small random writes. Swap is usually a 50-50 mix of reads and writes with no pattern to be seen. Thus if you swap to Flash, at least traditional Flash, then you will be very unhappy.

Your comment about bandwidth needing to go to a spindle seems strange as well. I have a 4 drive raid-5 flash array here that just tested at >400 MB/sec on reads and >150 MB/sec on random writes ...

      http://managedflash.com/news/papers/07-12-01_mtron-benchmarks.pdf [managedflash.com]

I don't know of many "spindles" that can keep up with that. Plus total power draw is 12 watts operating and 2 watts idle (actually the raid controller draws another 15, sorry).

If you want to see how Flash "can" be used for swap, see:

      http://managedflash.com/ [managedflash.com]

Even compact flash cards are effective for swap yielding about 2000 4K random read/write IOPS.

ps: sorry for the advert. at least it was short.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (3, Informative)

try_anything (880404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877090)

Is your working set honestly over 8GB? Your dataset might be extremely large... but I would think that for the most part you'd get along just fine with swapping out to a decently fast device and your working set would be considerably below 8GB.
...

more L1/L2 cache available to access. Though this assumes your applications are somewhat parallelizable...
That's a big assumption. Give the guy a break! Maybe he's just working on a problem where there's no known way to achieve predictable data access patterns. After all, not everyone doing math on computers is solving differential equations. When somebody says their working set is over 8GB and you make the jump all the way down to L1 and L2 cache, it's obvious that you are used to working on nicely behaved numerical problems. Not everybody is so lucky! And, indeed, a lot of heavy work goes into making those problems so "nice." Differential equations have been the center of the applied math world for over two hundred years, and they have important military and industrial applications. Centuries of brilliant mathematical work, massive investment, decades of clever programming, and all this for problems that naturally lend themselves to partitioning and parallelization anyway. The field is so mature that people who work on these kinds of problems get used to the idea that arbitrarily large datasets can be processed in arbitrarily small chunks just by using common sense and known techniques. In general, this assumption is much too optimistic. There are plenty of problems that are not so nice or not so well understood.

Re:I doubt the need for that much ram. (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877750)

I made no assumption about what his problem was. If his problem has no locality and it's working set is so large that it will never fit into RAM no matter how much he buys (consider a working set the size of a terrabyte, not easy to fit into ram even with a large budget) then improving his swap performance will be most helpful if he has very little locality. If he happens to have lots of locality (yes, this requires getting lucky) and if he happens to be running something that could be parallelized then on-chip cache would likely be even more valuable than any RAM improvement.

You clearly didn't understand what I was saying if you thought I was assuming that his problems had significant locality. I was encouraging the OP to explore other sections of his memory hierarchy as people tend to neglect to plan for any level but RAM when buying new equipment.

Chipsets (4, Insightful)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873404)

To narrow things down a bit, it's not about Motherboards - it's about chipsets. I've only been looking at Intel (AMD don't have the performance right now for music stuff) - Intel's current P35 and X38 chipsets both support 8GB memory max. If you need more then you have to look at one of the Xeon chipsets: the 5000X workstation chipset is the one to look at if you want to be able to run 2 processors (not sure what the equivalent one is for a single processor) - it supports up to 32GB of memory.

Re:Chipsets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873436)

>AMD don't have the performance right now for music stuff

A 1MHz Commodore 64 has had "the performance for music stuff" since the 80s, maybe you could be a bit less moronic?

Re:Chipsets (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873460)

AMD don't have the performance right now for music stuff

What I meant to say there was Intel is ahead for music stuff right now. Last time I went with AMD (X2 4400+), but this time it looks like it will be an Intel (Q6600 probably).

Re:Chipsets (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873484)

Unless you're trying to parallel process stacks of tracks of audio and put effects on top of all of them then I doubt there is much difference between AMD and Intel for the same stuff.

Re:Chipsets (1)

NeoThermic (732100) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874588)

Not really. For video encoding or just outright FPU performance, the latest Xeon range will crush an Opteron. Even on price the Intel is cheaper; an Opteron 2222 (at £447.99 each) vs a faster Xeon E5345 (£300.09 each). Ok, so call me unfair for pitching a dual-core vs a quad core. The highest quad-core Opteron is the 2347, £275.70 each. Picking the same one at the price range Xeon side gives you the E5335 at £213.35 each, and it'd still be faster.

So, with Xeon you can have performance and cheap prices at the same time. I see no reason to go to AMD, do you?

NeoThermic

Re:Chipsets (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874666)

That's pretty much exactly what you do. And have you seen the CPU requirements of convolution reverb, or component-modeled effects/synths?

Re:Chipsets (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873750)

Hm, for audio work I'd be grabbing a dual G5 setup and skipping the whole AMD/Intel thing entirely. 35GFlops per G5 vs 40Gflops for a single quad core Xeon, and you can pick one up for less.

What's "music stuff" (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873538)

I mean, if Microsoft thinks that doing all audio mixing in software is ok for gamers (Windows Vista) then it'd be interesting to know which audio tasks would bog down a multicore CPU.

What's "bog stuff" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873570)

"it'd be interesting to know which audio tasks would bog down a multicore CPU."

Listening to slashdot give advice all at once.

Re:What's "music stuff" (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874324)

which audio tasks would bog down a multicore CPU
Multiple tracks@24bit/44 or 96 khz, complex realtime effects and virtual synths, low latency.

Audio recording (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873580)

Ooo, music person!

You seem to be into audio recording. I'd like to build a computer for that purpose. Do you have any links (or direct information) about what I should keep in mind when I choose my components? I would really appreciate that!

(I intend to use Linux, if that makes any difference.)

Re:Audio recording (2, Informative)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874714)

I'm not the OP, but you may want to check out the Studio Central forums [studio-central.com]. Filled with equal measures of twats and great advice. You'll probably want to check out the DAW forums (digital audio workstaion, in case you've not come across that term before).

Don't expect to find very much about Linux though.

Re:Audio recording (2, Informative)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875310)

I use XP for music stuff (linux for everything else)... I'll probably get an Intel DP35DP motherboard (pretty popular with DAW builders) and Core 2 quad Q6600 (best bang for buck). There's good advice to be had over at the SoundonSound forums (the PC Music board) and there's even a Linux section: http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/postlist.php?Board=LinMus [soundonsound.com] . The other way to go is to look at what the pro DAW builders are using - www.adkproaudio.com are pretty well respected and seem to be on top of the issues.

Good luck!

Re:Chipsets (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874146)

the 5000x chip needs FB-DIMMS that cost more then DDR 2 ECC.

A dual cpu dual quad or dual dual-core system with 2 to 4 gb per cpu will cost less + you can get a board with the nforce pro chip set.

up to 32 GB DDR2 667/533/400 ECC ram + on board sas hardware raid also High-End PCI-e Graphics (SLI Supported)
http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron2000/MCP55/H8DA3-2.cfm [supermicro.com]

or this one

http://tyan.com/product_board_detail.aspx?pid=541 [tyan.com]

Best motherboards for 64-bit and large memory (4, Interesting)

redstar427 (81679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873412)

Standard motherboards are typically limited to 8 GB of ram, since they are designed for home users and gamers.
Server/workstation motherboards are the best solution at this time to go beyond this. Most people are only running 32-bit software, with 1-3 GB of ram, so it's not a problem for them.

Currently at work, I use a Tyan Tempest i5000XT (S2696) motherboard, with dual quad-core Intel Xeon cpu's, and 8 GB of ram. I will expand to 16 GB in 2008. This board can upgrade to 32 GB of ram, with 4 GB Dimms, which should be available sometime in the future.

I dual boot with 64-bit Fedora 8 Linux, and 64-bit Windows Vista Ultimate. I run Fedora 8 for all my productive work, and use VMWare with different versions of Linux and Windows, for testing and standard Windows work. I dual boot into 64-bit Vista Ultimate when I need Windows with direct hardware support for some multimedia apps and gaming. 64-bit Vista Ultimate seems a lot more compatible with current apps than 64-bit Windows XP Pro.

For my next home computer, I will choose a similar, but different Tyan Server/workstation motherboard.
The Tyan Tempest i5400PW (S5397) is also a dual socketed motherboard for dual quad-core Xeon cpus.
It has 16 memory sockets and can be expanded up to 128 GB of ram, with future dimms of 8 GB each.
I believe this is the best long-term solution for those that really need a lot of ram, at a reasonable price.
Even with just reasonable priced 2 GB dimms, it can hold 32 GB ram, which is a lot, even for large 64-bit apps.

While $450 for these motherboards is fairly expensive, they provide a lot of value, and good quality desktop motherboards cost $150-400, so it's not really that much more.

Re:Best motherboards for 64-bit and large memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21876164)

Currently at work...I dual boot into 64-bit Vista Ultimate when I need Windows with direct hardware support for...gaming.
Are there any vacancies where you work? Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait until they fire you for gaming...

Check your app first (0, Redundant)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873434)

Before you go running off to buy a motherboard, and more memory, make sure Windows and the applications you're running can handle the extra memory. With 32 bit windows you could only allocated 2 gigs of RAM to any process unless the process did some really tricky hacking (like SQL Server, I'm not aware of any others) that let them use more. We have some web servers with 2 Gigs of RAM, and that probably the perfect amount, since most people report that you can't get ASP.Net to use more than 1.2-1.4 gigs anyway, no matter what you do. Even if you are running 64 bit windows, you would probably have to make sure that you're running a 64 bit version of MatLab, and that it's set up to handle having extra memory. Having lots of memory works well if you have lots of apps that need to access around 0.5-1 GB of RAM, but if you want 1 app to access 16 GB of RAM, it can get a little tricky.

Re:Check your app first (1)

hakr89 (719001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873790)

Well you know, Matlab does run on linux as well, so depending on what limitations linux has, the examples you mention may just be reasons why you don't use windows for high end computing.

Re:Check your app first (1)

ChronosWS (706209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21875140)

No, if Matlab was compiled as a 32 bit app, the compiled code doesn't have the correct instructions for accessing a 64 bit memory space, no matter what the OS is capable of.

Buy a real workstation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873516)

The HP xw8600 for example, has dual quad core xeon 5460's at 3.16 GHz, with 12 MB of L2 cache, 128GB of ram, and just about every possible bus connection you could want.

re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21873744)

Being on a limited budget that I am, I happened upon a CPU/Mobo combo at FRYs, actually. I was looking for a board that could support dual CPUs or more, and got the ECS NFORCE6M-A board (bundled with an AMD 64bit dual-core processor). It's capable of supporting up to 32GB of ram. And I only paid $88! :-p

No, it's not a "High end" board, or a server type board, but it does work!

Your AMD Options (4, Informative)

this great guy (922511) | more than 6 years ago | (#21873820)

All current socket AM2/AM2+ AMD processors (Opteron 1000 series, Phenom, Athlon X2, etc) support a maximum of four unbuffered DDR2 memory sticks. All current socket F AMD processors (Opteron 8000 and 2000 series) support a maximum of eight registered DDR2 memory sticks. (You can find this info in AMD's public datasheets [amd.com]).

As of today, unbuffered and registered DDR2 memory sticks of 4 GB or more are extremely expensive because the technology cannot be inexpensively mass-produced (yet). Only 2-GB DDR2 sticks can be found at reasonable prices.

For these financial and technical reasons, your are restricted to a total of 8 GB per socket AM2/AM2+ processor, or 16 GB per socket F processor. Therefore the cheapest option for an AMD mobo supporting more than 8 GB of memory is to buy a single socket F model. Newegg sells one for $136 [newegg.com] (open box, though). Add a $180 Opteron 2212 [newegg.com] processor, $240 for eight 2-GB sticks [newegg.com] of registered DDR2-667, and you end up spending only $556 for a dual-core 2.0 GHz 16 GB barebone server assuming you have a chassis and a PSU lying around.

I'll leave other people comment on your Intel options. I am not very familiar with Intel server motherboards.

Re:Your AMD Options (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874780)

Just be careful what you put on a ServerWorks HT1000 board, they have some nasty bugs that need to be worked around (Linux and Windows should be ok):

Implement a workaround [freebsd.org] of the datacorruption problem on serverworks HT1000 chipsets.
The HT1000 DMA engine seems to not always like 64K transfers and sometimes barfs data all over memory leading to instant chrash and burn.
Somewhere there's a QA team which needs to be set on fire.

Intel 5100 chipset, Tyan, and Supermicro (1)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874030)

I also typically use Intel motherboards for their reliability, but currently Intel's desktop motherboards only support 8GB of RAM and their server motherboards are too expensive.
Intel recently released their 5100 chipset [intel.com] for "value" 2-socket Xeon servers, which can use up to 32GB of "standard" DDR2 (not FB-DIMMs). Unfortunately, they haven't released an Intel-branded motherboard based on this chipset.

Tyan and Supermicro, which both focus on the server/workstation market, are the only motherboard makers I've heard about releasing motherboards based on the 5100 chipset. If you trust the Intel brand for reliability, then I think this Intel chipset on a Tyan or Supermicro motherboard might be a decent compromise.

  • Tyan Tempest i5100X (S5375) [tyan.com] - Seems to be out of stock everywhere (searched Google Products), but it's being listed at about $320 to $400. It's a server board, but it looks like it would make a decent workstation (PCIe x16 slot, integrated audio, extended ATX size).
  • Supermicro X7DCL-i [supermicro.com] - In the same price range as the Tyan board, but seems to be available at a few online stores (like this [cesell.com]). Standard ATX size, but lacks PCIe x16 slot.

Re:Intel 5100 chipset, Tyan, and Supermicro (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21876080)

That Supermicro board has only six slots; how do you get 32GB? The Tyan board only has eight slots, which would require quite expensive 4GB DIMMs to get 32GB.

I think a motherboard with 16 slots would be a better choice.

Server boards are cheaper than you think (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874242)

There are server boards without SCSI and a variety of other features - they'll be described as "bare bones" servers and can still support large amounts of memory. Supermicro stuff is good as is Iwill and a variety of others. I don't really understand why you want to run something that has unix versions on Vista - this is really a problem solved by having two machines; a low end server with something decent to run the software well and a display terminal running whatever you want. X-windows software is available on MS platforms and Macs so you'll be able to see the stuff as if it is running on your own machine only it will be running with less overhead. Server 2003 64bit is another option - I have not heard anything good at all about how Vista handles memory intensive applications.

Oblig. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21874246)

But, 640k ought to be enough for any "Vista Ready" motherboard!

Apple Mac Pro or XServe? (3, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#21874954)

The latest Mac Pro supports 16 GB of RAM and the latest XServe (a better option IMHO) supports 32GB of RAM.

Mac Pro Specs [apple.com]

XServe Specs [apple.com]

XServe is a quad-core XEON 64bit at 3GHz as is the Mac Pro

They will both run Matlab w/ stunning execution.

Here's a nice case study for the XServe w/ Matlab: Induquímica Laboratorios [apple.com]

Tyan (Tiger S5197G2NR) (1)

FliesLikeABrick (943848) | more than 6 years ago | (#21877502)

All of my favorite motherboards have been Tyans, lately the Tyan Tiger S5197G2NR. I now own ~10 Tyan-based machines, including some rackmount machines based on their 2U TA-26 barebones systems. I really can't think of any other brand I can recommend, but they've certainly got something to satisfy what you're looking for.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...