Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
frequency cables and gotten any better results? And generally for CAT5
cable, is th
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
> :affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
> :over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
> :frequency cables and gotten any
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
> :can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
> :room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
> :you need it then pushing it
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > : Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
> > :can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
> > :room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
> > :you need it then pus
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
> :wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
> :guage.
>
> For twisted pair, Less power == less crosstalk. Plus the higher
> bandwidth transcei
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
> At 08:08 PM 16/07/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >> : I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
> >> :wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
> >> :guage.
> >>
>
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
> > Thanks for the article and for the brief. I just have a little
> >comment on shielded versus unshielded for both analog and digital audio
> >cables, not sure if this applies to data cable but digital audio is data:
> >
> >Cables are of the "nude" (uns
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > I am benefiting from it for sure. I guess what I was asking
> > originally was if the higher frequency rated cables will give it more
> > headroom since the 100BaseTX ethernet does push CAT5 to the limit.
>
> 100BaseTX is specified to run on C
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > > Note also that FreeBSD can easily saturate 100 Mbps Ethernet.
> >
> > It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
> > and other factors do affect the perform
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
> > and other factors do affect the performance. I guess a good way to test
> > the cable is with FreeBSD since it's the only real OS I've seen that can
> > do like real world sp
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > I mean Mega as in 100. 100Mbps Ethernet should be equal to
> > about 12500Kbytes/sec which is equal to 12.5Mbytes/sec. 94.93Megabits/sec
> > doesn't equal to 100Megabits/sec.
>
> 12.5 Mbytes/sec on the wire *is* 94.93 Megabits/sec applica
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
> > need?
>
> As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> problems (disk ba
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
> > > There again, any network installer worth their salt will test the cable
> when
> > > in-situ, after the 'dust' has settled...
> >
> > Testing after the dust has settled and while it is in use is
> > different since conditions do change. The testers on
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> > > or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> > > problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended to run the tests for 30 seconds
> > > to one minute.
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
> :need?
> :
> : With a 122MByte file, it only does 2644Kbytes/sec. This is
> :between two Pentium II 450 machines with Intel Pro100+ NICs.
>
> 2.6 MB/sec is what I would
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > > > As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> > > > or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> > > > problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> 2.6 MB/sec is what I would expect if you were running the test
> :> over an ssh link on a fast cpu - the encryption eats a lot of cpu. But
> :> a normal rcp or ftp or data transfer can easily do 9-10 MBytes/sec.
> :
> : That was actu
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Ah, you have a point there. The problem is we have so many wires,
> > we don't know which port goes to what on the Catalyst so we had it on
> > autodetect and FreeBSD d
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
> > the actual device connected to it...
> >
> > FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
> > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0090.abea.3bc1 (bia
> > 0090.abea.3bc1)
> >
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > Please read the documentation.
> >
> > This is hard since the actual machines and switches are almost
> > 6000 miles away from me and the last time I checked, it didn't come with
> > manuals. I know my way around the Cisco routers but the sw
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
> > I guess I forgot about the overhead. I've tested between two
> > FreeBSD machines using Intel Pro100+ NIC cards connected to a Cisco 2924XL
> > Switch Full Duplex and never seen anything close to the speeds.
>
> using netperfv2pl3 and
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> We have previously done many network performance tests for our
> products running on FreeBSD ...
>
> We have found that when ever there is disk accessing involved, it
> is not a good idea to look at the transfer figures. We did tes
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
> Hi ..
>
> > > 1. If you want to test the network speed ... use ttcp or something
> > >that generates the data and doesn't read it from disk.
> >
> > ttcp works. The only problem is when I tried it in both
> > directions, at once. the t
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > By reading the man page?
> > > The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp...
>
> I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
> > the actual device connected to it...
>
> You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
> played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
> > > played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port
> > > -> host correlations? Good luck... :)
> >
> > Even if it did show the arp of the actu
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > No idea but it seems like the people who sold the Cisco switches
> > atleast claimed that each port is supposed to be secure to prevent packet
> > sniffing by people on the other po
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
> :selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
> :any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror
> :data to a different port
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > No idea, all I know is that people on our LAN without changing MAC
> > addresses can see all traffic going on the LAN. Even from our FreeBSD box
> > with trafshow, we can see traffic that is destined for the global net from
> > the modem dialup
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > Then either there is a hub between your net and the switch, or the switch
> > > is badly misconfigured.
> >
> > Well, the switch came out of the box and just had the default
> > setup It just has a IP assigned to it... And there is no hu
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> > :Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
> > :selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
> > :any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mir
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I was wondering what is the
fastest Celeron chip that can be overclocked to run at 100
gone through numerous motherboards, we have found the ASUS
> P2B (now the P2B-F) to be rock solid for Pentium II usage.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst
> > 2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or
> > just layer 2?
>
> Cisco, yes...
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, [KOI8-R] ?? ?? wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board bu
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
> &
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> >
> > > I've had great results with the Tyan 1836DLUAN/Thunder 100's.
> > > I've got several boxes with 1GB of RAM and dual 450's humming along. For
> > > comparison one system with less m
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mike Hoskins wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> > > Not really. The customer whose box this is chose this much memory
> > > because his previous server was a 256MB UltraSparc that was swamped all
> > > the
> > > time with a load of 6 to 7.
> >
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> Vincent Poy wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings everyone,
> > > >
> > > > What are the curren
Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm
supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone
machine?
Cheers,
Vince - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Vice President __
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Vincent Poy writes:
> >Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm
> > supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone
> > machine?
>
> It depends on what metric one uses to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Walter Hop wrote:
> [in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 25-04-2001]
>
> > Interesting. What happens if it's like the reverse where one runs
> > FreeBSD under vmware from Windows2000? Since 5-10% seems to be really
> > slow.
>
> I always try out new applications in a vir
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Walter Hop writes:
> > [in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 25-04-2001]
> >
> > > Interesting. What happens if it's like the reverse where one runs
> > > FreeBSD under vmware from Windows2000? Since 5-10% seems to be really
> > > slow.
> >
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Søren Schmidt wrote:
> It seems Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> >root@pele [9:09am][/usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd] >> make
> >cc -O -pipe -c /usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd/burncd.c
> >/usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd/burncd.c:65: warning: `struct cdr_cue_entry'
Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
frequency cables and gotten any better results? And generally for CAT5
cable, is t
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
> :affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
> :over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
> :frequency cables and gotten an
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
> :can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
> :room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
> :you need it then pushing it
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > : Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
> > :can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
> > :room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
> > :you need it then pu
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
> :wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
> :guage.
>
> For twisted pair, Less power == less crosstalk. Plus the higher
> bandwidth transce
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
> At 08:08 PM 16/07/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >> : I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
> >> :wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
> >> :guage.
> >>
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
> > Thanks for the article and for the brief. I just have a little
> >comment on shielded versus unshielded for both analog and digital audio
> >cables, not sure if this applies to data cable but digital audio is data:
> >
> >Cables are of the "nude" (un
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I am benefiting from it for sure. I guess what I was asking
> > originally was if the higher frequency rated cables will give it more
> > headroom since the 100BaseTX ethernet does push CAT5 to the limit.
>
> 100BaseTX is specified to run on
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
> Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > > Note also that FreeBSD can easily saturate 100 Mbps Ethernet.
> >
> > It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
> > and other factors do affect the perform
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
> > and other factors do affect the performance. I guess a good way to test
> > the cable is with FreeBSD since it's the only real OS I've seen that can
> > do like real world s
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I mean Mega as in 100. 100Mbps Ethernet should be equal to
> > about 12500Kbytes/sec which is equal to 12.5Mbytes/sec. 94.93Megabits/sec
> > doesn't equal to 100Megabits/sec.
>
> 12.5 Mbytes/sec on the wire *is* 94.93 Megabits/sec applic
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
> > need?
>
> As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> problems (disk b
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
> > > There again, any network installer worth their salt will test the cable
> when
> > > in-situ, after the 'dust' has settled...
> >
> > Testing after the dust has settled and while it is in use is
> > different since conditions do change. The testers o
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> > > or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> > > problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended to run the tests for 30 seconds
> > > to one minute.
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> : Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
> :need?
> :
> : With a 122MByte file, it only does 2644Kbytes/sec. This is
> :between two Pentium II 450 machines with Intel Pro100+ NICs.
>
> 2.6 MB/sec is what I woul
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > > > As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
> > > > or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
> > > > problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> 2.6 MB/sec is what I would expect if you were running the test
> :> over an ssh link on a fast cpu - the encryption eats a lot of cpu. But
> :> a normal rcp or ftp or data transfer can easily do 9-10 MBytes/sec.
> :
> : That was act
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Ah, you have a point there. The problem is we have so many wires,
> > we don't know which port goes to what on the Catalyst so we had it on
> > autodetect and FreeBSD d
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
> > the actual device connected to it...
> >
> > FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
> > Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0090.abea.3bc1 (bia
> > 0090.abea.3bc1)
>
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Please read the documentation.
> >
> > This is hard since the actual machines and switches are almost
> > 6000 miles away from me and the last time I checked, it didn't come with
> > manuals. I know my way around the Cisco routers but the s
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
> > I guess I forgot about the overhead. I've tested between two
> > FreeBSD machines using Intel Pro100+ NIC cards connected to a Cisco 2924XL
> > Switch Full Duplex and never seen anything close to the speeds.
>
> using netperfv2pl3 an
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> We have previously done many network performance tests for our
> products running on FreeBSD ...
>
> We have found that when ever there is disk accessing involved, it
> is not a good idea to look at the transfer figures. We did te
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
> Hi ..
>
> > > 1. If you want to test the network speed ... use ttcp or something
> > >that generates the data and doesn't read it from disk.
> >
> > ttcp works. The only problem is when I tried it in both
> > directions, at once. the
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > By reading the man page?
> > > The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp...
>
> I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque.
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
> > the actual device connected to it...
>
> You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
> played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
> > > played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp -> port
> > > -> host correlations? Good luck... :)
> >
> > Even if it did show the arp of the act
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > No idea but it seems like the people who sold the Cisco switches
> > atleast claimed that each port is supposed to be secure to prevent packet
> > sniffing by people on the other po
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
> :selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
> :any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror
> :data to a different por
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > No idea, all I know is that people on our LAN without changing MAC
> > addresses can see all traffic going on the LAN. Even from our FreeBSD box
> > with trafshow, we can see traffic that is destined for the global net from
> > the modem dialu
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Then either there is a hub between your net and the switch, or the switch
> > > is badly misconfigured.
> >
> > Well, the switch came out of the box and just had the default
> > setup It just has a IP assigned to it... And there is no h
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> > :Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
> > :selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
> > :any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mi
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I was wondering what is the
fastest Celeron chip that can be overclocked to run at 10
gone through numerous motherboards, we have found the ASUS
> P2B (now the P2B-F) to be rock solid for Pentium II usage.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst
> > 2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or
> > just layer 2?
>
> Cisco, yes...
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, [KOI8-R] óÅÒÇÅÊ ïÓÏËÉÎ wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board bu
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board bu
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
> > II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
> &
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> >
> > > I've had great results with the Tyan 1836DLUAN/Thunder 100's.
> > > I've got several boxes with 1GB of RAM and dual 450's humming along. For
> > > comparison one system with less
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mike Hoskins wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
> > > Not really. The customer whose box this is chose this much memory
> > > because his previous server was a 256MB UltraSparc that was swamped all the
> > > time with a load of 6 to 7.
> > Alas,
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> Vincent Poy wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings everyone,
> > > >
> > > > What are the curren
85 matches
Mail list logo
