On 2006-01-19 18:49, Stuart Henderson wrote: > CPU is fast enough that it wasn't horribly slow, but obviously not as > good as it could be. "anything else" - in my case, the next fastest > is a celeron 2ghz (my asrock board has an opteron 146). I haven't > seen any reliability problems with it, but I haven't worked it harder > than a few cvs pulls and 'make build's. [...] > SuSE Linux seems to support the nic about the best. I don't see > anything in FreeBSD cvsweb to indicate that their -current would be
First, I would like to say I am really grateful for your answers here! Thanks a lot! I managed to install FBSD on the machine (failed with OBSD, NBSD, Debian, Knoppix and Trustix) which was good since I prefer a BSD on this compared to e.g. SuSE. Now I won't have to buy additional hardware for this one (but thanks again for your ideas on that area), but I am about to choose H/W for a server that _must_ run OpenBSD. Learning from "the past", I am now checking the M/B spec. and compare them to http://www.openbsd.org/i386.html and http://www.openbsd.org/amd64.html. I have found 4 available motherboards (socket 754, so the amd64 port would be the best choice, I guess) at our provider, that might work; the southbridges/all-in-one chips in those are, respectively: * nVidia nForce 410 MCP * nVidia nForce3 250 * VIA 8237R * nVidia nForce4-4X In the OBSD hardware list, I find * NVIDIA nForce/nForce2/nForce2-400/nForce3/nForce3-250/nForce4 * VIA Technologies VT82C586/A/B, VT82C596A/B, VT82C686A/B, VT8231, VT8366, VT8233, VT8235, VT8237 Which one do you think would be the safest bet here? It would be good to be able to run the SATA disks, but perhaps the safest bet of them all is to get regular ATA ones? Regards, /Joakim -- http://www.df.lth.se/~jokke/
