From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 13 18:50: 3 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311C637B401 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:49:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Bsdguru@aol.com) Received: from Bsdguru@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id x.ab.c381094 (4242); Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:49:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Bsdguru@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:49:52 EDT Subject: Re: Intel ISP1100 or similar 1U experience with 4.3 stable To: dg@root.com, hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message dated 07/13/2001 12:41:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dg@root.com writes: > >"If you have the space, 2U is better". Why is that statement so irritating > to > >you. Its a fact. you agree with it. So what is the problem? > > The problem is that you said that 1U solutions are inherently unreliable, > which is not true. > No, I said its "generally a bad idea", and that 2U were better for dual processors than 1U, which they are. The bottom line is that you can use "any-old" MB in a 2U, but you have to use a "specially engineered" one in a 1U to get reliability, which adds 100s of dollars at least with little or no performance gain. B To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message