Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:55:34 -0500
From:      Manuel Rabade Garcia <mig@rabade.net>
To:        freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: building an older server
Message-ID:  <20050901225534.3b513982@laptop.rabade.net>
In-Reply-To: <015101c5af37$4456d2d0$b47ba8c0@maximus>
References:  <000101c5ac82$66f25290$b47ba8c0@maximus> <20050829171305.GA70155@neptune.atopia.net> <001e01c5ace5$f62c16e0$b47ba8c0@maximus> <20050829222948.25b3993e@laptop.rabade.net> <015101c5af37$4456d2d0$b47ba8c0@maximus>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:30:26 +0300
"ANdrei" <lists@hausro.de> wrote:

> > 2x400 Mhz Celerons can have worst performance than a single 800 Mhz
> > processor (and I bet they will if the single processor is a P3 or
> > even another Celeron). But for your requirements 2 Celerons are
> > enough, and SMP is always better to rise your geeky level xDDDD
> 
> these are also PIII, I think, right? anyway, I thought that having 2
> procs can spread the jobs among them and get better performance when
> running tasks like webservers, database-servers and so on... Was I so
> wrong? i can use a Duron 1000MHz but on a cheap SiS board with only
> SDRam support, too, and integrated video/LAN, will this be much
> better? Shall I risk that, as the board is for sure not as stable as
> an Abit...?
> 

Both processors have a very small amount of cache. Maybe the Duron can
be faster than your pair of Celerons, but the only way to know it is
benchmarking both systems with the applications that you want to run.

I am not saying that your pair of Celerons are crap or something like
that, I just want to remark that the performance boast with a SMP
system isn't linear, spreading jobs across processors is also a job,
and can be very intensive :)

Also I am taking about performance, reliability is another issue that
your SMP motherboard wins without doubt. As I say before, the pair of
Celerons are a very good option.

> > WEP (64 and 128 bits) are very insecure against modern attacks
> > (some methods can broke 128 bits keys in ~10 minutes, even without
> > traffic). Check out an IP Sec or WPA-PSK to secure your wireless
> > network if you care :).
> 
> I care, but for WPA-PSK I have to go to FreeBSD 6.0, right? will the
> STABLE be the right option? 5.x will never support WPA-PSK, it
> seems... anybody any sidenotes/impressions on using WPA-PSK? works
> out of the box? :)
> 

I think so.

Greetings.

-- 
Manuel Rabade Garcia
 PGP - 1024D/D27DE2F3 2005-03-18
 Fingerprint - 7965 0CCE B9F8 B96B 2E6F  0B88 278C 52F8 D27D E2F3



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050901225534.3b513982>