Could a BM6/BE6 handle Gigabit ethernet?

In message <fJ5lc.8767$pJ1.2594@lakeread02>, TomG
<tgeery-NOSPAM- DeleteThis @cox.net> writes
 >I would think that the BE6 would handle it okay a long as there wasn't heavy
 >competition for the PCI bus bandwidth. keep in mind that if you do not have
 >an add-in EIDE controller with better capability like you do with the BM6,
 >the onboard IDE channels are ATA33 at best, which would limit the
 >performance of the filing system and that could easily become an overall
 >limitation of the performance of the platform.
 >

Hmmm..... I seem to recall that the BE6 was one of the first boards to
have UDMA support and the highpoint (366??) controller was limited. Is
it only '33' though?? Somehow I thought it was UDMA66

I'm probably wrong! Been a long time since I built it.

Its the BM6 with the UDMA100 PCI card that would probably be the most
important one. It would be the 'server'
Both the BE6 and BM6 are BX based boards yes?
Therefore would I be correct in assuming that if you think the BE can
handle it (with a fast disk subsystem) then the BM should be ok as well
??
The BM was sold as a lower cost option. I'm hoping it hasn't been
'crippled' in some bus infrastructure way!

TIA

Gareth.



 >
 >"Gareth Jones" <usenet DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
 >news:n414IoI$zLlAFwEw@nospam.demon.co.uk...
  >> Hi Folks,
  >>
  >> I'm thinking of upgrading our home office to gigabit LAN. A couple of
  >> the new machines (IS7g and Asus A7V600) have it built on the
  >> motherboards, but we've also got some old but very reliable BE6 and BM6
  >> machines that we still use. The BM6 with an 800MHz Celeron (via adapter)
  >> in particular has become the general purpose file server (have a promise
  >> UDMA100 RAID controller in there).
  >>
  >> My question is, if I stick a PCI gigabit card in the old machines, are
  >> there going to be any bottlenecks anywhere that would make the data
  >> throughput substantially slower via these compared with going via one of
  >> the newer ones.
  >>

--
__________________________________________________
Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
followed by 'net'
__________________________________________________<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Could a BM6/BE6 handle Gigabit ethernet? 

you are correct that the BE6 has the Highpoint 366 controller which is
ATA66. many people had poor to mediocre performance out the beast but I
never had any issues with it and still have two or more boards in operation
with the Highpoint 366 as the primary controller.

assuming that you have an installation that provides no performance problems
out of the Highpoint controller, you would have at least ATA66 operation.
however, any modern drive is ATA100 and, in theory, you would get even
better performance with an ATA100 drive and controller combination.

--

Thomas Geery
Network+ certified

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="ftp://geerynet.d2g.com" target="_blank">ftp://geerynet.d2g.com</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="ftp://68.98.180.8" target="_blank">ftp://68.98.180.8</a> Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
over 130,000 FTP users served!
^^^^^^^




"Gareth Jones" <usenet.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oLKL0fQAxOlAFwXT@nospam.demon.co.uk...
 > In message <fJ5lc.8767$pJ1.2594@lakeread02>, TomG
 > <tgeery-NOSPAM-.TakeThisOut@cox.net> writes
  > >I would think that the BE6 would handle it okay a long as there wasn't
heavy
  > >competition for the PCI bus bandwidth. keep in mind that if you do not
have
  > >an add-in EIDE controller with better capability like you do with the
BM6,
  > >the onboard IDE channels are ATA33 at best, which would limit the
  > >performance of the filing system and that could easily become an overall
  > >limitation of the performance of the platform.
  > >
 >
 > Hmmm..... I seem to recall that the BE6 was one of the first boards to
 > have UDMA support and the highpoint (366??) controller was limited. Is
 > it only '33' though?? Somehow I thought it was UDMA66
 >
 > I'm probably wrong! Been a long time since I built it.
 >
 > Its the BM6 with the UDMA100 PCI card that would probably be the most
 > important one. It would be the 'server'
 > Both the BE6 and BM6 are BX based boards yes?
 > Therefore would I be correct in assuming that if you think the BE can
 > handle it (with a fast disk subsystem) then the BM should be ok as well
 > ??
 > The BM was sold as a lower cost option. I'm hoping it hasn't been
 > 'crippled' in some bus infrastructure way!
 >
 > TIA
 >
 > Gareth.
 >
 >
 >
  > >
  > >"Gareth Jones" <usenet.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
  > >news:n414IoI$zLlAFwEw@nospam.demon.co.uk...
   > >> Hi Folks,
   > >>
   > >> I'm thinking of upgrading our home office to gigabit LAN. A couple of
   > >> the new machines (IS7g and Asus A7V600) have it built on the
   > >> motherboards, but we've also got some old but very reliable BE6 and BM6
   > >> machines that we still use. The BM6 with an 800MHz Celeron (via
adapter)
   > >> in particular has become the general purpose file server (have a
promise
   > >> UDMA100 RAID controller in there).
   > >>
   > >> My question is, if I stick a PCI gigabit card in the old machines, are
   > >> there going to be any bottlenecks anywhere that would make the data
   > >> throughput substantially slower via these compared with going via one
of
   > >> the newer ones.
   > >>
 >
 > --
 > __________________________________________________
 > Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
 > 'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
 > followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
 > followed by 'net'
 > __________________________________________________<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Could a BM6/BE6 handle Gigabit ethernet? 

"Gareth Jones" <usenet.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
 > Hmmm..... I seem to recall that the BE6 was one of the first boards
 > to have UDMA support and the highpoint (366??) controller was
 > limited.
 > Its the BM6 with the UDMA100 PCI card that would probably be
 > the most important one. It would be the 'server'
 > Both the BE6 and BM6 are BX based boards yes?
 > Therefore would I be correct in assuming that if you think the BE
 > can handle it (with a fast disk subsystem) then the BM should be
 > ok as well ??

Yeah, your BM6 system will be fine. It's Sunday and Tom's never firing all
cylinders at the weekend. Probably explains why he missed your comment about
this system having an ATA100 PCI card!

The only downside with it, as Tom correctly says, will be PCI bus contention
issues. The IC7-G and IS7-G boards have a big advantage in this area as the
gigabit ethernet chip is directly linked into the northbridge chip, and thus
doesn't take up PCI bus bandwidth.

However, provided both your UDMA100 card and whatever giganet card you buy
are bus mastering, you should still get a useful network performance boost
from the upgrade, if of course your network is heavily utilised at the
moment.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dabs.com" target="_blank">www.dabs.com</a>
Get the most out of your digital photos <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dabsxpose.com" target="_blank">www.dabsxpose.com</a>


 > The BM was sold as a lower cost option. I'm hoping it hasn't been
 > 'crippled' in some bus infrastructure way!
 >
 > TIA
 >
 > Gareth.
 >
 >
 >
  >>
  >>"Gareth Jones" <usenet.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
  >>news:n414IoI$zLlAFwEw@nospam.demon.co.uk...
   >>> Hi Folks,
   >>>
   >>> I'm thinking of upgrading our home office to gigabit LAN. A couple of
   >>> the new machines (IS7g and Asus A7V600) have it built on the
   >>> motherboards, but we've also got some old but very reliable BE6 and BM6
   >>> machines that we still use. The BM6 with an 800MHz Celeron (via adapter)
   >>> in particular has become the general purpose file server (have a promise
   >>> UDMA100 RAID controller in there).
   >>>
   >>> My question is, if I stick a PCI gigabit card in the old machines, are
   >>> there going to be any bottlenecks anywhere that would make the data
   >>> throughput substantially slower via these compared with going via one of
   >>> the newer ones.
   >>>
 >
 > --
 > __________________________________________________
 > Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
 > 'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
 > followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
 > followed by 'net'
 > __________________________________________________<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Could a BM6/BE6 handle Gigabit ethernet? 

yeah, I saw that the BM6 had the ATA100 controller added in but I figured
the comments directed towards the BE6 would still be worthwhile.

--

Thomas Geery
Network+ certified

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="ftp://geerynet.d2g.com" target="_blank">ftp://geerynet.d2g.com</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="ftp://68.98.180.8" target="_blank">ftp://68.98.180.8</a> Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
over 130,000 FTP users served!
^^^^^^^




"Richard Hopkins" <richh RemoveThis @dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:409545d4$0$20516$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
 > "Gareth Jones" <usenet RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
  > > Hmmm..... I seem to recall that the BE6 was one of the first boards
  > > to have UDMA support and the highpoint (366??) controller was
  > > limited.
  > > Its the BM6 with the UDMA100 PCI card that would probably be
  > > the most important one. It would be the 'server'
  > > Both the BE6 and BM6 are BX based boards yes?
  > > Therefore would I be correct in assuming that if you think the BE
  > > can handle it (with a fast disk subsystem) then the BM should be
  > > ok as well ??
 >
 > Yeah, your BM6 system will be fine. It's Sunday and Tom's never firing all
 > cylinders at the weekend. Probably explains why he missed your comment
about
 > this system having an ATA100 PCI card!
 >
 > The only downside with it, as Tom correctly says, will be PCI bus
contention
 > issues. The IC7-G and IS7-G boards have a big advantage in this area as
the
 > gigabit ethernet chip is directly linked into the northbridge chip, and
thus
 > doesn't take up PCI bus bandwidth.
 >
 > However, provided both your UDMA100 card and whatever giganet card you buy
 > are bus mastering, you should still get a useful network performance boost
 > from the upgrade, if of course your network is heavily utilised at the
 > moment.
 > --
 >
 >
 > Richard Hopkins
 > Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
 > (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
 >
<font color=purple> > The UK's leading technology reseller <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dabs.com</font" target="_blank">www.dabs.com</font</a>>
<font color=purple> > Get the most out of your digital photos <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dabsxpose.com</font" target="_blank">www.dabsxpose.com</font</a>>
 >
 >
  > > The BM was sold as a lower cost option. I'm hoping it hasn't been
  > > 'crippled' in some bus infrastructure way!
  > >
  > > TIA
  > >
  > > Gareth.
  > >
  > >
  > >
   > >>
   > >>"Gareth Jones" <usenet RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
   > >>news:n414IoI$zLlAFwEw@nospam.demon.co.uk...
   > >>> Hi Folks,
   > >>>
   > >>> I'm thinking of upgrading our home office to gigabit LAN. A couple of
   > >>> the new machines (IS7g and Asus A7V600) have it built on the
   > >>> motherboards, but we've also got some old but very reliable BE6 and
BM6
   > >>> machines that we still use. The BM6 with an 800MHz Celeron (via
adapter)
   > >>> in particular has become the general purpose file server (have a
promise
   > >>> UDMA100 RAID controller in there).
   > >>>
   > >>> My question is, if I stick a PCI gigabit card in the old machines, are
   > >>> there going to be any bottlenecks anywhere that would make the data
   > >>> throughput substantially slower via these compared with going via one
of
   > >>> the newer ones.
   > >>>
  > >
  > > --
  > > __________________________________________________
  > > Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
  > > 'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
  > > followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
  > > followed by 'net'
  > > __________________________________________________
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Could a BM6/BE6 handle Gigabit ethernet?