Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 17:36:15 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: <mavery@mail.otherwhen.com>, "Doug" <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: <kris@airnet.net>, <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: 3C905 versus Intel Etherexpress PRO/100?! Message-ID: <000001beccc7$b6f21830$021d85d1@youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <199907130032.TAA23620@hostigos.otherwhen.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > A fundamental design element for a server OS (as opposed to a > > desktop OS) is to always assume that *every* cpu cycle is valuable. Funny, this claim is the opposite of what I've usually heard. Generally, for desktop use, performance is considered more important that stability or reliability, which is why people often overclock processors in their desktops. Whereas, for server use, performance (I'm talking 5% or 10%, not factors of 2) takes a back seat to almost everything else. You can always buy a faster CPU, or another CPU, for your server. You can always add more RAM. You are far more concerned with things like clean design, extra safety checks to prevent crashes, and so on. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001beccc7$b6f21830$021d85d1>