Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:18:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Bowden <jamie@itribe.net> To: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I2O Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.96.980629151541.1819F-100000@animaniacs.itribe.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980629091801.7178B-100000@terra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Ron G. Minnich wrote: > at usenix last week the question of I2O came up. > > Don't worry about I2O. Look around: how many I2O motherboards do you see, > as compared to non-I2O motherboards? > > Look at it this way: you think microsoft is that interested in requiring > a second operating system (vxworks) to make NT go? > > I2O will be a footnote in a year or so. After that, it will be forgotten > and in 10 years someone else will reinvent the idea and learn the hard > way why it is a bad one (as I2O is itself a reinvention of old, bad ideas). Why is offloading IO a bad idea? Offloading video and 3D rendering work well, it's what drives 3dfx and it's competitors. Or am I missing something? My basic understanding of I2O is using a subprocessor to handle all IO, thus freeing up the main processor from doing things like waiting on interrupts and the like. -- Jamie Bowden Systems Administrator, iTRiBE.net If we've got to fight over grep, sign me up. But boggle can go. -Ted Faber (on Hasbro's request for removal of /usr/games/boggle) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SGI.3.96.980629151541.1819F-100000>