Does FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE support the 8237R?
danial_thom at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 3 09:09:28 PDT 2006
--- Mark <admin at asarian-host.net> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]
> On Behalf Of Danial Thom
> > Sent: vrijdag 2 juni 2006 18:28
> > To: Scott Hiemstra; 'FreeBSD-Questions
> > Subject: RE: Does FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE support
> the 8237R?
> > --- Scott Hiemstra <shiemstra at 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
> > >
> > > 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
> 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
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
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the freebsd-questions