I'm planning a server that will serve multiple set-top boxes (probably no more 
then two or three). Most likley, not all would be active at the same time, 
but it's possible. Each will most likely be viewing a different program. I'm 
assuming that Gig-e will work better for this then 100Mbit, but I'm not 
really sure.

My Motherboard (Asus A7V8X) has built-in gig-e. Are you saying that this will 
hurt my systems performance, even if I'm not filling up the pipe?

-Mike

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 06:41 am, James Pulley wrote:
> Unless you have a "really nice" hardware-accelerated Gig-E card I
> would go with a 100Mbit NIC instead.   Usually to fill a given pipe
> size requires 2x (x86) processor speed to fill a given pipe at standard
> ethernet frame sizes (no Jumbo Frames).   So, to fill a gigabit ethernet
> pipe requires at least a 2Gigahertz processor.  Performance Testing
> is my profession.  It is all too common that people will slap in
> a Gig-E card and then starve their app for CPU cycles on the same
> box.
>
> There are many codecs designed for mulicast that work very well in
> T-1 and above pipe sizes.  Any particular reason you need the gig-
> E pipe (other than copying files faster?)
>
> James Pulley, iTest Solutions
>
> At Monday, 26 May 2003, you wrote:
> >On Sunday 25 May 2003 06:51 am, Stian Davidsen wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > The most important consideration
> >> > is the PCI bus is only 33mbps, so you may have issues running
>
> say 2 tv
>
> >> > cards and something else like a firewire or mpeg encoder card
>
> at the same
>
> >> > time..
> >>
> >> The PCI bus is 132 MB/s = 1gbps.
> >> So unless you use both a gigabit nic and a firewire card on the same
> >> bus, you're probably in the clear.
> >
> >How about a Gigabit nic and two tv cards? This is intended as a
>
> server, so
>
> >there won't be much in the way of video out, sound out, etc.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
> >If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
> >relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
> >Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> >_______________________________________________
> >Freevo-users mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-users
>
> ===================================================================
> EASY and FREE access to your email anywhere: http://Mailreader.com/
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
> If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
> relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
> Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> _______________________________________________
> Freevo-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-users



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
_______________________________________________
Freevo-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-users

Reply via email to