From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 2 03:55:46 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB0216A41F for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:55:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mig@rabade.net) Received: from mail.eurorscg.com.mx (mail.eurorscg.com.mx [148.245.12.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5143A43D48 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2005 03:55:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mig@rabade.net) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.eurorscg.com.mx [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eurorscg.com.mx (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B5FAE0B for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.eurorscg.com.mx [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eurorscg.com.mx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D2AAE06 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.eurorscg.com.mx ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.eurorscg.com.mx [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56387-11 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.rabade.net (unknown [201.135.197.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eurorscg.com.mx (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFCDAE01 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from laptop.rabade.net (laptop.rabade.net [192.168.1.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.rabade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1C922835 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:10:07 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 22:55:34 -0500 From: Manuel Rabade Garcia To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.13 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.eurorscg.com.mx Subject: Re: building an older server X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:55:46 -0000 On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:30:26 +0300 "ANdrei" 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