[rescue] 3 O2s

[Joshua D Boyd]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 09:20:44AM +0300, Harri Haataja wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 02:12:13AM -0400, Joshua D Boyd wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 09:06:08AM +0300, Harri Haataja wrote:
> > > And an R10k or 12k won't be as fast as they are in other systems.
> > > They just don't mix very well.
> > What I want to know is which is faster.  A headless r10k o2, or a
> > headless r10k Indigo2, disk speed, ram capacity, and CPU clock held
> > constant of course.  We all know that the r10k Octane is best of all.
> > Faster ram, faster scsi, etc.
> 
> Hmm. That might be tricky and depends on some things. Since it's going
> headless you can probably cut graphics stuff out. That leaves UW scsi on
> O2 and SE on I2, UMA on O2, bus on I2, pci on O2 eisa on I2 etc.
> 
> http://www.futuretech.vuurwerk.nl/o2i2comp.html  Is just about this but
> may not answer exactly that question.

Yeah, that page never seems to say anything usefull if you are
completely ignoring graphics.  The point out a page comparing the CPUs,
but we know how they compare.  What we want is the big picture.  

I suspect that an R10k O2 would be faster than an r10k I2, since I
believe the bus is faster and the memory is faster.  But, I could be
wrong.  If we don't add any extra cards, then the bus shouldn't matter.
Also, if we use the same harddisk in both machines, the UWSE versus FWSE
shouldn't matter.  When X is running, I don't know how much the UMA
would effect performance.


-- 
Joshua D. Boyd