Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: Mark <admin@asarian-host.net>, 'FreeBSD-Questions Questions' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Does FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE support the 8237R? Message-ID: <20060603160927.11632.qmail@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <200606021859.k52Ix4gr067426@asarian-host.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Mark <admin@asarian-host.net> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org] > On Behalf Of Danial Thom > > Sent: vrijdag 2 juni 2006 18:28 > > To: Scott Hiemstra; 'FreeBSD-Questions > Questions' > > Subject: RE: Does FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE support > the 8237R? > > > > --- Scott Hiemstra <shiemstra@h2.com> wrote: > > > > > > Did you say you are running a server? > That MB is only suitable for > > > > desktop use, as it has the slowest > ethernet controller known to man > > > > on a 32/33Mhz bus. Running this MB as a > server is like putting > > > > cheap, skinny tires on your porsche. > > > > > > > > DT > > > > > > Personaly, I appreciate your dedication to > maximum performance but > > > please notice this thread is in reference > to swapping a MB for another > > > MB and coments like yours are not > appreciated. > > > > > > Would you prefer if I had stated? > > > > > > "I have the same board in a crappy server > running 4.11 (FreeBSD > > > 4.11-STABLE #0) and no problems to report." > > > > > > Please notice I never said what the box was > doing nor did I ask for > > > your opinion of what MB/NIC I use in my > systems. This SERVER is pur- > > > pose built and runs stable 24/7 as a low > volume outbound mail server > > > so the performance of the NIC is not my > primary concern. Please keep > > > your useless comments to yourself as they > do nothing but waste disk > > > space, CPU time and the valuable time of > people who attempt to help > > > others on this list. > > > > > > Scott > > > > So if someone is planning on using a crappy > motherboard as a server its > > not appropriate to mention that the > replacement is not suitable for the > > task? So since you're replacing the MB, why > not take the opportunity to > > use something suitable. > > Because it means introducing a whole slew of > new, unknown variables. :) > > When I first installed 4.10R, it did not even > support the 8237; and disk > performance on that board was limited to a > terribly slow Multi-World DMA 2 > mode (I think it was that; very slow, at > least). So, imagine my delight > when 4.11-STABLE supported the 8237 at last. > Buying a newer type > motherboard for 4.11-STABLE (where would you > find one for socket 754, so > soon replaced by socket 939, anyway?) would > likely mean an unsupported > south-bridge chip, and being back to square > one. Nope. I'm gonna stick > with what works for 4.11-STABLE (as that is > still my preferred FreeBSD > version; and if I cannot find a new motherboard > after the new one dies, I > will just continue to run the whole thing in a > Vmware box). > > As for the LAN, since I only have a 100 Mb > network, I see no reason to > assume even a less than ideal performing > gigabit LAN would slow things > down (unless its performance dropped below 10%; > and I'm sure it's not that > bad). > > In fact, not to be unnecessarily contrary, but > I would ere say this > motherboard is totally unsuited for desktop use > (I have a shiny P5WD2 > Premium for that), and that this board is > rather ideally suited for a > FreeBSD 4.11 system. Well that's just stupid, but you're entitled to waste your money in any way you choose. We run FreeBSD 4.9 and I've never had a problem with hardware. Of course I know how to choose hardware and you don't :) I never said "desktop". The MB isn't really suitable for anything that uses a LAN extensively. Knowing ASUS (whose MBs I'd never use, btw), I'd guess that the ethernet controller on the P4WD2 is connected to a 1x PCIe which would be a joke. What you don't "get": - The slower the bus, the more CPU cycles it takes to do an I/O. Typically you are doing 1000s and 1000s of I/Os per second. Thats 100s of 1000s of cpu cycles wasted per second. - inefficient controller = more CPU cyles per access. Maybe MANY more. This translates to degradation of your CPU. The more traffic, the more degradation. Whether you're on a gig network or a 100Mb/s network, the efficiency of the controller will still eat up your cpu. Of course if you're just doing IM or email, then you don't get enough iterations per second to make a difference. But on a server,or gaming machine or anything on a broadband connection, you're just killing your cpu using a crappy controller. You'd be better off putting up an old 845 chipset MB with an fxp controller running a 2.6Ghz celeron than what you're running, for a lot less money. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060603160927.11632.qmail>