From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 27 16:27:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5208816A403 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.225.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 912E843D46 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:27:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: (qmail 29245 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2006 16:27:24 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kDdZiAVFhcfaRSLI9ZAgn4QNKiKz0oJma+JMu3QHn5/PwosI7B1y1HGcxF5Bp5Mpe7uTeZv0wts34ZHZqxWF8A5OW60uY9iTaqT/ZSnmnY8SQb28XCFUrLUcz/BQ83XjsdDj8Whb+hR4NgOTyweQCRaHI49N+2J18suB5f4sRpI= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?70.31.50.218?) (mikej@rogers.com@70.31.50.218 with plain) by smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2006 16:27:24 -0000 Message-ID: <4450F0F2.9040102@rogers.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:27:30 -0400 From: Mike Jakubik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <20060425090739.8470143f.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <005301c668ab$39c4c150$8b00a8c0@multiplay.co.uk> <444E8F8A.9030409@rogers.com> <17487.34074.833134.823847@canoe.dclg.ca><444F8912.4010604@rogers.com> <44505784.2030806@gneto.com> <4450EC9B.1050101@rogers.com> <029201c66a16$a3c7e890$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <029201c66a16$a3c7e890$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Martin Nilsson Subject: Re: Dual-core CPU vs. very large cache X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:27:26 -0000 Steven Hartland wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Jakubik" > > >> Martin Nilsson wrote: >>> Mike Jakubik wrote: >>>> As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server >>>> motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when >>>> socket AM2 comes out. >>> >>> That is an old myth: http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/ >> >> Its not an old myth. Find me a single cpu opteron board, with dual >> Intel network cards (bge and nve suck ass) connected to a PCIe bus. >> Sorry, it doesn't exist. You have your pick of the old AMD chipset, >> the crappy Nvidia, or the unsupported ServerWorks, which still >> doesn't have PCIe. > > I suspect it doesn't exist because there's no market for single > cpu opteron boards, that's a desktop requirement not really server. > Yes, there is. Just not with the chipset/network card i want. Its the same story for dual cpu boards. Intel may not have the performance crown right now, but their products are reliable and well supported. (Does nvidia provide source code to their chipset/network card for freebsd? No. Does Broadcom... No. Does Intel? Yes.) > If you want server boards look for dual proc boards, there is a > good selection out there with a myriad of options. > > Not sure why you think bge sucks not had any problems with them > here, fairly good performance and reliable. Just look around the list on the continuous problems people have with that and the nve card. I would never feel safe putting these in production.