Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:09:48 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?RMH?= <rmhlldr@yahoo.co.uk> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel I440GX+ Message-ID: <20031107050948.64249.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roberto de Iriarte wrote: > > Scott Likens wrote: > > >On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 03:27, Tom wrote: > > > > > >>On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Scott Likens wrote: > >> > >>... > >> > >> > >>>Onboard SCSI, 1gig of ECC, dual P2-450's. Never had this problem > >>>before. > >>> > >>> > >> I hope you are using P3s, or Xeon CPUs not P2s, since P2s are not able > >>to cache memory above 512MB, which means that things will be real slow. > >> > >> > > > >No, Dual P2 Xeons. > > > > > > > Hmmm ? Are you sure ? I own an L440GX+ and Xeon's do not fit on it. You > might have either > an MS440GX or a C440GX, the former being a workstation board (with AGP), > the later an entry level server board > if there are PII Xeon CPU's on it. Only first PIIs had L2 cache which was unable to store data located beyond 512Mb memory boundary (233-300MHz, Klamath), and some of them even didn't support ECC for L2 cache. All the next PIIs (333-450MHz, Deschutes) had L2 cache with ECC, capable of all 4Gb. So PIIs are not so bad as some people may think. Besides, L2 cache of PIIXeons and some PIIIXeons (Drake & Tanner) is slow because it is off-core, regardless of running at full core speed. --- Regards, Rhett ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031107050948.64249.qmail>