6 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-hackersRe: I2O| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Ron G. Minnich | Jun 29, 1998 6:32 am | |
| Jamie Bowden | Jun 29, 1998 12:17 pm | |
| Ron G. Minnich | Jun 29, 1998 12:31 pm | |
| Jordan K. Hubbard | Jun 29, 1998 3:32 pm | |
| Jim Bryant | Jun 29, 1998 5:24 pm | |
| Andrew Reilly | Jun 29, 1998 8:38 pm |
| Subject: | Re: I2O | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jamie Bowden (jam...@itribe.net) | |
| Date: | Jun 29, 1998 12:17:56 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-hackers | |
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Ron G. Minnich wrote:
at usenix last week the question of I2O came up.
Don't worry about I2O. Look around: how many I2O motherboards do you see, as compared to non-I2O motherboards?
Look at it this way: you think microsoft is that interested in requiring a second operating system (vxworks) to make NT go?
I2O will be a footnote in a year or so. After that, it will be forgotten and in 10 years someone else will reinvent the idea and learn the hard way why it is a bad one (as I2O is itself a reinvention of old, bad ideas).
Why is offloading IO a bad idea? Offloading video and 3D rendering work well, it's what drives 3dfx and it's competitors. Or am I missing something? My basic understanding of I2O is using a subprocessor to handle all IO, thus freeing up the main processor from doing things like waiting on interrupts and the like.
-- Jamie Bowden Systems Administrator, iTRiBE.net
If we've got to fight over grep, sign me up. But boggle can go. -Ted Faber (on Hasbro's request for removal of /usr/games/boggle)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message