In alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64 Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:50:19 -0700, Igor wrote: > >> Do these add-on cards perform as well as an on-board Firewire interface? > > No... The interface can only operate as fast as the bus it's plugged into > so assuming the hardwired bus is faster than PCI an add-on card will be > slower... but the performance difference probably won't be noticeable in > any case. > OpenBSD has no support for Firewire. This may be in part because the Firewire protocol requires that the controller be able to access all of physical memory r/w, so it presents a security problem. --

[Newsgroups trimmed a little] On 2007-10-19, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:50:19 -0700, Igor wrote: > >> Do these add-on cards perform as well as an on-board Firewire interface? > > No... The interface can only operate as fast as the bus it's plugged into > so assuming the hardwired bus is faster than PCI an add-on card will be > slower... but the performance difference probably won't be noticeable in > any case. Only in most cases the on-board firewire will be implemented on the PCI bus anyway. Just because it isn't an expansion card doesn't mean that it's not PCI. In any case the point is moot as the PCI bus is higher bandwidth than firewire. The PCI bus is only going to limit things if you had a lot of other traffic on the bus, in which case the processor is likely to be struggling to keep up. Personally I prefer things like this to be off-board - expansion cards are much more likely to detail what individual chips they use so you can assess compatibility for any given OS. Even if you have those details for the on-board option, you're more likely to find specific compatibility reports for a card than you are for an on-board implementation. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

In article <dJ-dnfrB2dPJjYTanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com>, dave <daf@amd.localhost.comcast.net> wrote: >In alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64 Andrew Smallshaw ><andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: >> In any case the point is moot as the PCI bus is higher bandwidth >> than firewire. The PCI bus is only going to limit things if you >> had a lot of other traffic on the bus, in which case the processor >> is likely to be struggling to keep up. > >PCIe is faster and more efficient than PCI. Maybe there are PCIe Firewire >cards available. They are available. I have one in my MythTV box. It doesn't deliver any performance increase, of course, as 400 Mbps is well below the maximum that PCI or PCIe can deliver. It works as well as the previous PCI FireWire card did. (It did free up a PCI slot for another tuner, though...since tuner cards that work with Linux aren't readily available for PCIe yet, this is a Good Thing.) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Igor" wrote: >, robertharvey@my-deja.com wrote: > >> >>BTW multiple cross-posting is often considered rude, especially among >>europeans. it can also lead to mesasges being filtered out by people >>trying to avoid spam > > It's a tough call. I know it annoys some people, but OTOH, it can lead > to greater dialog as the posters from the various groups interact with > each other. Not a tough call at all. Your message is appropriate for all groups included, and crossposting is FAR better than a bunch of messages posted individually to the groups. Jon