Iyonix 1Gb nic

[Ron]

Hi,
I find it strange that the HP t5325 thin client (Mentioned at
riscosinfo) only has 10/100 networking, when all the Marvell products
have 1 Gbit ethernet. The OpenRD client looks better in that respect.

Anyway more to the point, I recall Druck I think, stating the speed
limitations of the Iyonix.
Could I have the explanation again please, and is there any way it can
be improved, for example with a PCI card, or OS changes?

TIA, Ron

[Rob Kendrick]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:16:19 +1300
Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

> Hi,
> I find it strange that the HP t5325 thin client (Mentioned at
> riscosinfo) only has 10/100 networking, when all the Marvell products
> have 1 Gbit ethernet. The OpenRD client looks better in that respect.

Not all the Marvell parts have GbE. Some only contain a 10/100 MAC.
10/100 is sometimes used in preference because GbE requires
significantly more power.

> Anyway more to the point, I recall Druck I think, stating the speed
> limitations of the Iyonix.
> Could I have the explanation again please, and is there any way it can
> be improved, for example with a PCI card, or OS changes?

It's about RISC OS's bad use of hardware; it's not efficient enough in
many places to make good use of the bandwidth, and there are (or used
to be) certain elements that were triggered by timers rather than
events, thus limiting the absolute maximum throughput.

B.

[Ron]

In message <20091120094...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
> It's about RISC OS's bad use of hardware; it's not efficient enough in
> many places to make good use of the bandwidth, and there are (or used
> to be) certain elements that were triggered by timers rather than
> events, thus limiting the absolute maximum throughput.
>
> B.
>

OK, you haven't faulted the hardware layout here.
It makes me wonder how the Iyonix Linux networking performed.
There has been the original Debian, a newer BSD and maybe Slackware??
done if I want to make a comparison.

Thanks, Ron M

[Rob Kendrick]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:18:39 +1300
Ron <be...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

> In message <20091120094...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>
> Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > It's about RISC OS's bad use of hardware; it's not efficient enough
> > in many places to make good use of the bandwidth, and there are (or
> > used to be) certain elements that were triggered by timers rather
> > than events, thus limiting the absolute maximum throughput.
> >
>

> OK, you haven't faulted the hardware layout here.
> It makes me wonder how the Iyonix Linux networking performed.
> There has been the original Debian, a newer BSD and maybe Slackware??
> done if I want to make a comparison.

While the Iyonix's hardware has an extensive range of issues, the
ethernet is not one of them to the best of my knowledge. Normally, if
it works at all, it'll work.

Of course, it's possible to make the hardware dreadful if you try, but
you really need to try. (Like, attaching a GbE controller via
back-to-back PCI/ISA bridges, or some such horror.)

I have no idea about its performance under Linux; there are issues with
the Iyonix's memory bandwidth that may limit its usefulness, but that
bottleneck is reached long after the RISC OS-related problems rear
their head.

B.