Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:2962 comp.os.linux:40136 comp.os.mach:2949 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2643
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!ftl.telematics.com!not-for-mail
From: ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.os.mach,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: high performance motherboards for Unix?
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Date: 24 May 1993 19:47:35 -0400
Organization: Telematics International, Inc. - Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 60
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1trmqn$3jm@procyon.ftlsw.telematics.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: procyon.ftlsw.telematics.com
(continuing a series of pleas for assistance :-))
I am trying to come up with a PC configuration well suited to Unix (it
will need to be able to run DOS/Windoze as a secondary requirement,
but I assume that this is not a problem). In addition, cost, while
not paramount, is a significant concern.
My current thinking is towards a DX2/66 VLB system, with an LB SCSI
controller and LB video. There are numerous such motherboards on the
market, with almost identical features (usually 2 VLB slots, 256KB
cache, 4 or 8 SIMM sockets (allowing 64 or 32 MB respectively)).
(Probably many systems are using the same MBs; I believe Gateway, Edge
(Micron), and several others all use the Micronics).
I'm not concerned right now with the I/O controllers, but just the
basic system/motherboard; in particular, the performance of the
processor/memory complex.
The 256KB cache is probably sufficiently large for DOS (and Windoze?)
applications that cache structure, memory interface, etc. aren't too
important. I'm not convinced that the same is true for Unix (less
locality, larger working set, context switching, etc.)
I know the Micronics MB uses a direct-mapped, write-through cache, and
does not use interleaving of memory. Not being familiar with PC cache
control h/w, I don't know the ups and downs of these choices. I also
don't know if there are any systems with better caches/memory
interfaces available (I know there are some VLB systems with
write-back caches, but I don't know if they have other drawbacks).
While there is probably _some_ connection between _which_ Unix is used
and the performance profile of a given board, I would guess that this
would be a minor effect (i.e., if board A is significantly faster than
board B on SCO, it will also be for Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc.).
Given that, has anyone benchmarked systems and/or motherboards of this
class (looking _only_ at processor/memory performance) with any flavor
of Unix enough to draw any conclusions (either "they're all the same"
or "system Y or MB Z is _much_ better than others I've checked" would
be good).
Failing that, does anyone have any recommendations, based on either
personal use or knowledge of the design of the MB that they would care
to share?
Also, I assume all VLB implementations are roughly equivalent, but I
might be wrong. If anyone has info concerning any particular system's
VLB being much better or worse (e.g., outboard of L2 cache, etc.), I'd
appreciate knowing that.
(If I get emailed responses, I will summarize unless the emailer asks
me not to. Note the "Followup-To"; if I post a summary, I will post
to all in the header of this message.)
Thanx for any info!
ted
--
Ted Goldblatt Ted.Goldblatt@telematics.com (305) 351-4367
Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL