ISE 6.1 and Redhat 9

[Garry Allen]

I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and what
if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I can
run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Hans]

Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

"Garry Allen" <garrya@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3abc4240.0309181808.3e1b9cbc@posting.google.com...

I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and what
if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I can
run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Matt]

Question... have you done any benchmarks for performance relative to
Windows? (Synthesis/Translate/Map/PAR) Same or similar hardware would be
best.

Thanks in advance!

"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1nzab.364$4G3.59567@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

"Garry Allen" <garrya@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3abc4240.0309181808.3e1b9cbc@posting.google.com...
I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and what
if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I can
run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Garry Allen]

"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<1nzab.364$4G3.59567@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>...

Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com
Thanks Hans

I will do it tonight
Garry

 

[Matt]

Hehe... okay, let me rephrase. Have you noted any performance differences
relative to your Windows experiences? Good and bad. I promise not to call it
a benchmark! ;-)

I haven't had the opportunity to try the Linux version yet. --Matt



"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CIWab.308$Ne.985132@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...

Hi Matt,

No I haven't (too busy). Also you know what they say about benchmarks
"Lies,
Damn Lies and Benchmarks

Hans.

"Matt" <bielstein2002@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMPab.521826$YN5.347243@sccrnsc01...
Question... have you done any benchmarks for performance relative to
Windows? (Synthesis/Translate/Map/PAR) Same or similar hardware would be
best.

Thanks in advance!

"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1nzab.364$4G3.59567@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

"Garry Allen" <garrya@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3abc4240.0309181808.3e1b9cbc@posting.google.com...
I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and
what
if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I
can
run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Steve Lass]

Our limited testing has show Linux to be about 10% faster than Windows
running PAR. Linux
also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few really
big designs that run out
of memory on Windows XP run fine under Linux.

Steve

Matt wrote:

Hehe... okay, let me rephrase. Have you noted any performance differences
relative to your Windows experiences? Good and bad. I promise not to call it
a benchmark! ;-)

I haven't had the opportunity to try the Linux version yet. --Matt



"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CIWab.308$Ne.985132@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...


Hi Matt,

No I haven't (too busy). Also you know what they say about benchmarks


"Lies,


Damn Lies and Benchmarks

Hans.

"Matt" <bielstein2002@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMPab.521826$YN5.347243@sccrnsc01...


Question... have you done any benchmarks for performance relative to
Windows? (Synthesis/Translate/Map/PAR) Same or similar hardware would be
best.

Thanks in advance!

"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1nzab.364$4G3.59567@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...


Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

"Garry Allen" <garrya@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3abc4240.0309181808.3e1b9cbc@posting.google.com...


I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and


what


if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I


can


run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Petter Gustad]

Steve Lass <lass@xilinx.com> writes:

Linux also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few
really big designs that run out of memory on Windows XP run fine
under Linux.

Hopefully there will be a 64-bit Opteron version...

Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

 

[Steve Lass]

Petter Gustad wrote:

Steve Lass <lass@xilinx.com> writes:



Linux also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few
really big designs that run out of memory on Windows XP run fine
under Linux.



Hopefully there will be a 64-bit Opteron version...

Yes, that's the plan. Of course running on a 64 bit operating system

takes about 1.5X more memory.

Steve

Petter

 

[Eric Smith]

Petter Gustad wrote:

Hopefully there will be a 64-bit Opteron version...

Steve Lass <lass@xilinx.com> writes:

Yes, that's the plan.

That's great to hear!

Of course running on a 64 bit operating system
takes about 1.5X more memory.

Sure! But it can take advantage of a lot more memory too. Memory
is inexpensive, so if configuring a machine with 8G or 16G of RAM
speeds things up or succeeds in PAR for large designs that fail on
32 bit systems, that's a small price to pay.

 

[Matt]

Thanks Steve. I appreciate the feedback.


"Steve Lass" <lass@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:3F71C406.3050105@xilinx.com...

Our limited testing has show Linux to be about 10% faster than Windows
running PAR. Linux
also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few really
big designs that run out
of memory on Windows XP run fine under Linux.

Steve

Matt wrote:

Hehe... okay, let me rephrase. Have you noted any performance differences
relative to your Windows experiences? Good and bad. I promise not to call
it
a benchmark! ;-)

I haven't had the opportunity to try the Linux version yet. --Matt



"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CIWab.308$Ne.985132@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...


Hi Matt,

No I haven't (too busy). Also you know what they say about benchmarks


"Lies,


Damn Lies and Benchmarks

Hans.

"Matt" <bielstein2002@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMPab.521826$YN5.347243@sccrnsc01...


Question... have you done any benchmarks for performance relative to
Windows? (Synthesis/Translate/Map/PAR) Same or similar hardware would
be
best.

Thanks in advance!

"Hans" <hansydelm@no-spam-ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1nzab.364$4G3.59567@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...


Try (bash),

export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1

It runs fine on my RH9,
Hans.
www.ht-lab.com

"Garry Allen" <garrya@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3abc4240.0309181808.3e1b9cbc@posting.google.com...


I am very thankful that Xilinx is now supporting Linux directly in
ISE6.1. However, out of the box it only directly supports Redhat 7.3
and Redhat 8. Has anyone managed to install it under Redhat 9 and


what


if anything did you need to do to get it to call the glibc libraries
successfully?

At the moment when I run ./setup, it fails with an error msssage
stating that it cannot find the glibc libraries. I am unsure if I


can


run multiple versions of the gcc compiler
Comments
Thanks
Garry Allen

 

[Jim Granville]

Steve Lass wrote:

Our limited testing has show Linux to be about 10% faster than Windows
running PAR. Linux
also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few really
big designs that run out
of memory on Windows XP run fine under Linux.

Steve

Do they have the same ceiling ?
ISTR comments on (some versions?) of windows only being able to
access 2GB RAM, because MS decided the other 2GB was for them,
not for you. ( and who would want > 2GB anyway....

Any tests of Linux/AMD 64 bit CPUs P&R ?

-jg

 

[Steve Lass]

Jim Granville wrote:

Steve Lass wrote:


Our limited testing has show Linux to be about 10% faster than Windows
running PAR. Linux
also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few really
big designs that run out
of memory on Windows XP run fine under Linux.

Steve



Do they have the same ceiling ?

Yes, both Windows XP and Linux can address 3G. As far as I know,

Windows 2000 will
only address 2G.

ISTR comments on (some versions?) of windows only being able to
access 2GB RAM, because MS decided the other 2GB was for them,
not for you. ( and who would want > 2GB anyway....

Any tests of Linux/AMD 64 bit CPUs P&R ?

Not yet.

Steve

-jg

 

[Steve Lass]

I just received some more complete benchmark info on Linux vs. Windows XP
using ISE 6.1i. The average runtime on Linux is 18% faster than
Windows. The
best we saw is 43% faster.

Also, one of our application engineers tried a customer project that
uses a XC2V1000, via ISE 6.1i. His quote:

This was done on a quad Opteron 844 multiprocessor server, hosted by
64-bit SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 8. And it was wicked fast.
On this same system, I was also able to run four concurrent ISE 6.1i
environments, driving them all over SSH via X to my Linux laptop. Each
one had gigabytes and processor power to spare, I could literally work
four ISE jobs at one time.

Thought you might enjoy this information -- ISE 6.1i is a great tool,
and it runs on 64-bit Linux!

Note that this is not a configuration that we officially support, and of
course he is running ISE 6.1i which is a 32 bit application.

Steve

Steve Lass wrote:

Jim Granville wrote:

Steve Lass wrote:


Our limited testing has show Linux to be about 10% faster than Windows
running PAR. Linux
also uses less memory. The average is about 6% less and a few really
big designs that run out
of memory on Windows XP run fine under Linux.

Steve



Do they have the same ceiling ?

Yes, both Windows XP and Linux can address 3G. As far as I know,
Windows 2000 will
only address 2G.

ISTR comments on (some versions?) of windows only being able to
access 2GB RAM, because MS decided the other 2GB was for them, not
for you. ( and who would want > 2GB anyway....

Any tests of Linux/AMD 64 bit CPUs P&R ?

Not yet.

Steve


-jg

 

[Eric Smith]

Jim Granville wrote:

Do they have the same ceiling ?

Steve Lass <lass@xilinx.com> writes:

Yes, both Windows XP and Linux can address 3G. As far as I know,
Windows 2000 will
only address 2G.

Running 64-bit Linux on an AMD64 processor (Opteron or Athlon 64)
allows 32-bit Linux applications to access just under 4G. I haven't
tried ISE 6.1i on an AMD64 yet, but I expect that it should be able
to P&R larger designs than on 32-bit CPUs.

None of my designs to date have needed more than 1.5G.

 

[Steve Lass]

Eric Smith wrote:

Jim Granville wrote:


Do they have the same ceiling ?



Steve Lass <lass@xilinx.com> writes:


Yes, both Windows XP and Linux can address 3G. As far as I know,
Windows 2000 will
only address 2G.



Running 64-bit Linux on an AMD64 processor (Opteron or Athlon 64)
allows 32-bit Linux applications to access just under 4G.

I didn't know this, but apparently others in the software organization did.

Thanks for the info,

Steve

I haven't
tried ISE 6.1i on an AMD64 yet, but I expect that it should be able
to P&R larger designs than on 32-bit CPUs.

None of my designs to date have needed more than 1.5G.