Going for Linux as my second OS for home pc

Operating Systems & Open Source Linux
21

Yes it’s a layer but this is not unusual. Unless you’re trying to break speed records it does not affect performance for the user. The two VMs have their own GPU and screen. Really like two computers. There is software that shares the mouse and keyboard with the two computers.

I’ve considered setting up my PC in this way but I hardly use Windows. If I was much more heavily into Windows I’d do this. If I was somewhat into Windows I’d give it it’s own GPU but use Remmina on my main screen. However I hardly use Windows so it’s just a standard VirtualBox VM running Windows 7.

1 Like
22

Weeeeeell… Tried installing it today.

Things even went “not as bad” as I’d expect. Audio booted up, after installing PipeWire I even got the “headset/speaker” option working. But then I switched to Windows. I thought my headset and speakers would simply get on fire (I was very afraid for my 28om “silk” headphones).

As I mentioned earlier, my soundcard has a portion of “hardware”. Well, when I installed PipeWire I finally heard the “internals” switching. But it appears to be that it does more than simply “switch” - it seems to be loading “the whole thing”, and PipeWire seems to be doing it “differently” (not in a way, designed by the vendor).

All the profiles were forced to 100% volume (felt like 100500% volume…) and some sound processing was also tuned. In result - Creative’s software couldn’t work with that profile and everything was tuned to “it’s over 9000!!!” mode (and the soundcard does have 3 Headphones profiles in terms of “om” - 30, 300 and 600. How I didn’t fry my headphones is a mistery).

But for everything else, well, it was doing good. Managed to find an iCue replacement (but for the keyboard only), and even stuff to configure NZXT’s “Smart Device v2”.

Apart from this, I think I won’t repeat the experiment and will stick to either Linux on VM or will set it on a laptop.

Thank you all for your help.

1 Like
23

Sad to hear it. I think some kernel devs would be interested in helping you get your sound setup going, because it would probably benefit a lot of Audio professionals going forward. But only if you feel you got the time to tinker a little bit. :slight_smile:

Sounds like Linux is 99% there. Out of curiosity, what distro and kernel release?

24

Yeah, also got a huge dose of disappointment. Really wanted to make it work.

But, on the other hand… I’m currently installing it as a VM through Hyper-V manager. So far so good. I would even go as far as to say that I don’t see any performance drop if to run in through Hyper-V (so far).

Maybe some day. For now, used that spare m2 drive as a host for the VM.

Yeah, I understand that. Sadly, but to even start in this direction would require to simply find and communicate with a person (which would interfere with work).

Plus Linux vs Windows managed “not to get along” even in terms of “system clock” - every time I booted to Linux, then to Windows would end up with Win clock dropped to default “time zone” time(for some strange reason).

For making matters worse - I have a TV connected as a second monitor, and got stuck in a situation where the default monitor to display BIOS and GRUB would be the first one online (nVidia cards’ logic…), which is the TV (because it would seem TV keeps the video connection always as ON) → TV. This is an additional headache, which by its own is a headache.

Kubuntu 22.04 LTS, 5-15-0-43-generic

It is, but that damn 1% (I always run into this 1%, which makes

25

Audio booted up, after installing PipeWire

I had not appreciated you were doing something special with sound. I’d pass through all the required hardware to the VM you want to use it.
You may even need a 2nd sound card for the other VM, perhaps the onboard sound or a cheap 2nd sound card.
If you pass the hardware through then the OS ought to be able to handle it properly.

26

Nothing special, simply the possibility to listen to music (plus you still need sound for online calls).

Anyway, fired Linux through Hyper-V. Gave it 8 gigs of ram, 8 cores to play with (sadly cannot toggle the GPU) - I generally cannot tell if I’m running it through a VM (if to compare with what I had when I was using it “directly”).

Still thinking of trying to do a second VM using VMWare just to see if there will be some benefit, but for now I think I don’t really need a dual boot.

Plus I have all the knowledge for the moment when I’ll decide to try going Linux main in the future :slight_smile:

27

Obviously the point of going VM is that you don’t need dual boot. You boot both up at the same time.

This crazy Ukrainian lady explains the benefits and principle but does not tell you the details;

1 Like
28

For me the sole reason for going dual boot was to have two isolated systems, both limiting in performance only by hardware specs. From my last experience, whenever I tried going Linux as VM, I’d hit a brick wall with VM simply cutting down performance, making you clearly understand that you’re working on a VM.

Just now installed Hyper-V and VMware Workstation (both Pro and Player…). And I see a huge performance gap between them. With Hyper-V from a fresh boot it takes 1-2 seconds to start Firefox with plugins. VMware does almost the same thing (I didn’t even go as far as to install plugins…) in 4-5 seconds (I rechecked every VM option a few times). Same distro, same configs, same fresh updates (and I didn’t forget to install vmtools).

1 Like
29

I supposed I’ve not noticed this in VirtualBox on my RYZEN 9 5900X with 64GB and everything on SSD. What I do notice is lack of graphics acceleration. I’ve got enough to play Solitair in Windows 7 but that’s it.

I was never expecting performance from my Proxmox RYZEN 7 2700 with no GPU accessed over Remmina. However the only time it’s slow to use (apart from display speed) is when the VM is on the HDD rather than the SSD. As long as the VM is on SSD it’s fine.

30

That’s the thing - i9900k with 16 gigs of ram (my head hurts when it comes to the question of “upgrading”). It’s more than enough for the things I do - games/entertainment on one side, and Java development on the other.

That is also a point of interest. You can feel the “sludginess” of things. With Workstation I got the option to give 8 gigs of my 2080Ti to the VM and still it performed somehow worse than the Hyper-V.

I did like what that “Crazy ukrainian lady” did, but that is an overkill for my use.

I wanted at some point to run games on a VM, but it was too clunky. I just don’t want to have a situation when the 2D of the VM is becoming frustrating…

1 Like
31

I love the craziness of the crazy Ukrainian lady, she reminds me of my crazy UKR friend. She is spot on and I really wanted to build what she built but like you I really don’t need it badly enough.

I hate to say it but your system has lost it’s bragging rights, what’s worse it’s probably struggling with all this VM stuff. Nothing stopping you from chucking some more RAM in there. An 8GB Windows 10 is about as small as you could go and be practical, Windows responds to more.

Your 2080Ti should be a gaming monster, however seeing the struggles of Jeff Craft Computing and Wendel to get VM gaming to work really means it’s not worth it. I did dabble with it in Proxmox but quickly realised it was going to remain a poor experience. Impressive to get it working and then that’s the end of my interest.

It’s a completely different situation if you pass that actual PCIe hardware through. Nothing else has access to the GPU whist that VM is running and it runs as native bare metal so no performance problems.

The point of what Morgonaut is building is not so much virtualising everything but passing through loads of stuff as bare metal. Her virtual machines have real SSDs, USBs, Audio, GPUs and monitors. From what you’re describing it sounds like you not passed through a GPU yet but simply allocating some of it from the hyperviser. Just pass the whole GPU through to the VM.

32

There is a native Microsoft Team app for Linux that works very well; I used it for my interview for my current job.

1 Like
33

Honestly, I don’t have anything, that would even breach the 16gb plank of ram usage. It’s a gaming/work pc for a developer. Most of the things I do is either code or play games (everything AAA still runs on max settings… but I don’t even bother with that since I don’t find anything interesting for my linking from the newest games), movies, music, browsing.

Yes, I could slap more ram, but for me it would be money to waist.

I like to upgrade my specs once in a few years, buying the latest top tier (but not TITAN cards or Threadrippers), but beside that I don’t bother (unless I see that my beast is struggling with the task).

I think I may upgrade next year with the latest Ryzen (but hell, I don’t like the idea that the only way to make it work would be delidding) or i13, with a 4080/4090, but that is a huge headache since I have a perfect custom loop system now (and without a doubt I will be watercooling the next one). But that will be then.

No, I have no intention of gaming through a VM. The whole “VM” for me was a side plan, if my dual boot scenario would fail. I won’t be working with Windows while the VM is running - most likely will have music on, with the rest being done on the VM (and will be shutting it down the moment I’m done… or snapshoting, dunno).

Yeah, and I don’t see an option for it with Hyper-V. Regardless, the intent of that action was just to have KDE, Intellij and so on with enough GPU not to suffocate. And nothing more.

34

Thank you. They finally made one, which is great (remember doing the whole “from browser” routine).

35

If 16GB is enough for one computer then 32GB would be enough for two computers. I have built a FreeNAS with 8GB but it clearly works better with 16GB.

It’s hard to judge if 16GB of RAM is optimal when you only have 16GB of RAM. The way the computer uses RAM depends on how much is fitted. A bit like the way you spend money depends on how much you have. The computer will budget it’s RAM usage accordingly. I will admit I’ve never seen my Mint system use all 64GB unless I was running VMs but I have seen it when it will happily run in 16GB with memory to spare but spread out to 24GB when fitted with 32GB.

It’s the same with VRAM, it will run in say 8GB with some to spare but give it 12GB and it will use 11GB (Battlefield 2042).

From what I’ve been seeing the cooling of the Zen4 is not a genuine problem. AMD made their CPU max out all available power and all available cooling by default. However you can simply switch on Eco 105w or Eco 65w and it’s the same power draw as Zen3 but with 95% of the full Zen4 performance.

In my opinion AMD made the wrong decision but I can see why. They wanted to make sure it would beat 13th gen. However they have given Intel the licence to use more power. Had they held back then Intel would have been the hard to cool CPU. Overclockers would have found a nice little gift from AMD had they left the ability in the BIOS but left it switched off.

1 Like
36

If I remember correctly, Linux caches in ram the modules of the most executed processes, making them load and perform faster next time they are in use. So, yeah, for Linux having even 128 GB of ram would certainly be better than 16 (if you actually have stuff to occupy all of that memory).

20 Gaben damn C difference. 7950 is going all the way to 95.

Similar question came up when I was thinking between 1080Ti and 2080Ti. “Yeah, 2080Ti will cost more, but I will get more kick out of it”, “but on the Other hand, I can buy 1080Ti for half the price and have somewhere smaller performance… who cares about those extra performance points…”.

The moral is that you can always go for that “oh well, why would I need those extra FPS”, in the end buying the cheapest zen2, slapping it into the cheapest mobo and so on. If I go for an upgrade, I usually tend to go for the best there is (until the dollar per fps gap is too huge, and I don’t see a point).

Buying the top-notch desktop Ryzen expects that it will perform by its fullest (and with an overclock possibility when that “fullest” won’t be enough). I’m not that guy, who sits in an AMD/Intel/nVidia tinfoil hat during their yearly presentation with my MasterCard in hands, just waiting for that “Buy” button to become available.

In one hand there’s the horsepower, in the other - overall system stability and usability. If AMD even manages to beat Intel in the first, but succeed in the second… well, this will be the 3rd build, which will be Intel based. Unless I go for a dual custom loop setup (which would require ordering a case, which would fit everything), I don’t want to see my pc going from zero silent in 90% of the use cases to a vacuum cleaner (which would also affect gpu temps and make things worse), but have that Zen4 sticker.

37

Well overclocking exists because the CPUs have more to give than their default so no you don’t get the full potential of a CPU when you buy it. Laptops especially. If you take the back off a laptop and fit a water cooling system you can get it to stay in boost.

You’ve also misunderstood the temperature thing with 7000 series. By running hotter they handle more power not less. Yes de-lidding works. We’ll see if that means more performance.

You’re happy with your 16GB RAM limit yet insist you need that extra 5% performance on a CPU that’s already 400% faster than what you have then complain it runs too hot for you when it can easily run just right.

Thinking you must risk de-lidding a very expensive AMD CPU just so it will suit your needs is a pretty good reason to stay well away from it and buy something from Intel.

I think you need to work out what you want based on what’s available within budget.

38

I’m happy with the last “top of the line” CPU I bought, which didn’t have alternatives at that time. I’m complaining due to the fact, that the current “best” is disappointing since it brings back the AMD oven jokes. It’s like buying the fastest car, which doesn’t have a seatbelt or even a break.

The fact that it’s “400% faster” only means that it’s newer, and nobody said that I’m comparing it in terms of horsepower to a 9900k (only comparing in terms of the “best” from that period in comparison to what today’s “best” seems to be). But at the same time, it means that I will be looking for something else because for me it looks “half-baked” (and I sincerely don’t care if it’s 400% faster in comparison to what I have).

I understand it in terms of how AMD market’s their “faster than Intel”. It is quite similar to how non-Noctua tower coolers are compared with Noctua - Yes, we are better, Yes, we cool better. But no, we don’t perform as good on low fan speed, and no, our fans are heard whenever they turn on.

Unless you’re one of those folk, who doesn’t care about fan noise and room temperatures, a CPU product is expected to be both powerful and with reasonable temps. If the CPU is just “more durable and doesn’t burn out in a year’s time with a working temperature of 95C”, it’s simply out of my field of interest (and at this point I don’t care about ECO modes… ECO is something I can set on any other CPU if I feel the need).

I am, Yes. I am happy since by far, after over 15 years of working with PC’s and understanding when more RAM is needed, I still don’t feel like chasing that “64 GB of RAM” for the “Why not” reasons.

It is. And I am very disappointed with AMD because of this. Wanted to try Ryzen for a long time. Thought that Zen4 would be the one.

This is the fun part. If I want it, I usually make the effort of getting it.

But, as you have numerously pointed out, my “not to brag about” system still doesn’t provide me with reasons of upgrading it since I don’t see any task at my disposal, which could use the “400% faster” CPU and 64 GB of RAM.

The discussion was even never about my hardware. I never planned to go with that “crazy ukrainian lady” solution (and I’m strictly lost to question of “Why” beside some specific use cases or “marketing”).