Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
Actually, not always true. Certain Intel chipsets hang a separate
communications channel for an onboard Gigabit NIC off the South Bridge:

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/955x/index.htm

Right, like I said:

"Except for AGP, PCI-X, and PCI Express, *everything* goes through
a PCI bus"

That gigabit NIC is a native PCIe device.

BTW, the D955XBK is the motherboard I just bought, and I'd highly recommend
it for its features. I know Intel gets a bad rep for slower, hotter
processors, but the P4 dual-core 2.8GHz runs at 62°C with 2 copies of CPU
Burn-In running.

I just need another one so I can test real gigabit Ethernet throughput
(although even the current speeds make remote drives as fast as standard
IDE drives).

I guess you could argue that this is basically going through the PCIe
bus, but it's not obvious unless you look at the specs, most would
assume it's PCI based like 99.9% of the others.

As you can see, almoste everything on that chipset either runs straight
off of PCIe or alternate, non-PCI compatible bus architecture, but through
the much higher than PCI speed PCIe-compatible south bridge. Everything
maps to PCI plug-and-play, and most devices emulate a PCI bus connections,
but the physical connection isn't the same, so it's a pain for an OS that
doesn't have drivers and wants real low level access. As an example, the
SATA-II hardware is completely invisible to Linux, and I'm pretty sure
the NIC would be, too, since it required a driver update for XP.

As an aside, older Intel motherboards had similar weird connections for
their gigabit NICs. Check out:

http://developer.intel.com/products/..._schematic.gif

Notice that the gigabit Ethernet comes straight off the north bridge. It
did help throughput a bit, if you had native drivers. Otherwise, you
ended up going though the south bridge 10/100 connection. In essence, the
wire was placed into gigabit mode, but the data came through the 100Mbit
path inside the chip into the south bridge (it emulated exactly an Intel
gigabit NIC installed in a PCI slot). It's still damn fast, but limited
to 133MB/sec like all PCI south bridge chips.

Yep, PCIe has more than enough throughput for Gigabit speeds. I'm just
pointing out that the vast majority of PC's out there aren't PCIe based.

It's a real pain not having an AGP slot on most PCIe motherboards, so
upgrading is a lot more expensive, but the video is worth it for anything
intense. I can finally watch HDTV without dedicated MPEG-2 hardware and
have no burps.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/PaperOrPlastic.gif

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Randy S. wrote:
Joe Smith wrote:
A crossover cable by itself does not go at gigabit speeds.

You're probably correct, I don't think 2 directly connected NIC's will
autonegotiate to Gigabit speeds. I would think it ought to be possible
to set them manually to that rate, yes? I don't see any reason that a
switch would be required to operate at Gigabit speeds.

A crossover cable only crosses over two pair.
Gigabit ethernet uses all four pairs.
Plus I believe that signal amplification is needed.
A GigE switch is required to operate.
-Joe

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Right, like I said:

"Except for AGP, PCI-X, and PCI Express, *everything* goes through
a PCI bus"

That gigabit NIC is a native PCIe device.

Yep, I picked the wrong example. I was thinking about the 865 with the
dedicated communication streaming architecture which you so kindly found
for me below ;-). That one *doesn't* go through the PCie bus so it does
count as an exception. However it does seem that they abandoned it
since PCIe has more than enough throughput, so it's more of a curiousity
than an important point.

As an aside, older Intel motherboards had similar weird connections for
their gigabit NICs. Check out:

http://developer.intel.com/products/..._schematic.gif

Notice that the gigabit Ethernet comes straight off the north bridge. It
did help throughput a bit, if you had native drivers. Otherwise, you
ended up going though the south bridge 10/100 connection. In essence, the
wire was placed into gigabit mode, but the data came through the 100Mbit
path inside the chip into the south bridge (it emulated exactly an Intel
gigabit NIC installed in a PCI slot). It's still damn fast, but limited
to 133MB/sec like all PCI south bridge chips.

Ok, yeah, as I said above *that's* the one I was think of ;-).

Yep, PCIe has more than enough throughput for Gigabit speeds. I'm just
pointing out that the vast majority of PC's out there aren't PCIe based.

It's a real pain not having an AGP slot on most PCIe motherboards, so
upgrading is a lot more expensive, but the video is worth it for anything
intense. I can finally watch HDTV without dedicated MPEG-2 hardware and
have no burps.


You've got to feel sorry for the poor schlumps who thought they were
getting a good deal over the holidays and ended up with a brand new
outdated computer without PCIe or dual cores or any of the good stuff.

I haven't actually moved to PCIe myself yet, but I'm planning to build a
new one this year. I may wait until Intel comes out with their next
line of Dual cores that implement hyper-threading this summer. 2
physical cores acting as 4 virtual processors would be nice!

Randy S.

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Joe Smith wrote:
Randy S. wrote:

Joe Smith wrote:

A crossover cable by itself does not go at gigabit speeds.


You're probably correct, I don't think 2 directly connected NIC's will
autonegotiate to Gigabit speeds. I would think it ought to be
possible to set them manually to that rate, yes? I don't see any
reason that a switch would be required to operate at Gigabit speeds.


A crossover cable only crosses over two pair.
Gigabit ethernet uses all four pairs.
Plus I believe that signal amplification is needed.
A GigE switch is required to operate.
-Joe

You are correct that all 4 pair are used, rather than just 2 as in fast
ethernet (100 Mbps). However, amplification actually doesn't seem to be
required, nor a switch. It's just that the pinout is slightly different
than most network geeks were used to using:

http://logout.sh/computers/net/gigabit/

Note that Apple Gig NIC's have auto MDIX sensing and will operate at Gig
speeds directly connected even with a normal cable (though a crossover
cable will also work). They still may need to have the speed set
manually though.

Randy S.

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
I haven't actually moved to PCIe myself yet, but I'm planning to build a
new one this year. I may wait until Intel comes out with their next
line of Dual cores that implement hyper-threading this summer.

Don't bother. The gains from hyper-threading (either benchmark or real world)
are almost zero except for a very few specific programs that have been
written with HT in mind. The problem is that HT just allows two programs
to access two different parts of the processor's various execution units
at the same time (like integer math and floating point math). If two programs
want to do the same thing at the same time, one has to wait.

Dual core, OTOH, is just two processors on one die, and they share only
almost exactly what two separate physical processors on one motherboard
share...it's just closer to the chip in this case. You get real performance
gains with dual core any time you have two threads wanting to do *anything*
at the same time.

With the price premium that the latest greatest processors command, you're
better off just waiting a month or two until the P4 D830 drops down a bit
to become competetive with the D820, and get the added bonus of better power
management along with a few more MHz. Otherwise, the D820 is the runaway
price/performance leader in the Intel line.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/UserFri...rCustomers.gif

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

I haven't actually moved to PCIe myself yet, but I'm planning to build a
new one this year. I may wait until Intel comes out with their next
line of Dual cores that implement hyper-threading this summer.


Don't bother. The gains from hyper-threading (either benchmark or real world)
are almost zero except for a very few specific programs that have been
written with HT in mind. The problem is that HT just allows two programs
to access two different parts of the processor's various execution units
at the same time (like integer math and floating point math). If two programs
want to do the same thing at the same time, one has to wait.

Certainly, the speed gains of HT w/ any *one* specific program is
minimal, even if it's multithreaded. However, I do believe there are
some decent multi-tasking gains which are reasonably useful on a general
use computer (not so much for a single task oriented machine. Probably
only 25-40% of that of a true dual core though. But with a dual-core HT
processor you are getting both, so it can't hurt ;-).

With the price premium that the latest greatest processors command, you're
better off just waiting a month or two until the P4 D830 drops down a bit
to become competetive with the D820, and get the added bonus of better power
management along with a few more MHz. Otherwise, the D820 is the runaway
price/performance leader in the Intel line.

True. OTOH, AMD is supposed to come out w/ Quad cores this year ;-).

Randy S.

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
True. OTOH, AMD is supposed to come out w/ Quad cores this year ;-).

Unfortunately, even if these are sold at a loss, any Microsoft OS will cost
you so much more to be able to utilize the extra 2 "processors" that it would
be hard to justify.

And, the support for games on Windows Server 2003 isn't very good. :)

--
Jeff Rife | "Because he was human; because he had goodness;
| because he was moral they called him insane.
| Delusions of grandeur; visions of splendor;
| A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
| -- Rush, "Cinderella Man"

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

True. OTOH, AMD is supposed to come out w/ Quad cores this year ;-).


Unfortunately, even if these are sold at a loss, any Microsoft OS will cost
you so much more to be able to utilize the extra 2 "processors" that it would
be hard to justify.

And, the support for games on Windows Server 2003 isn't very good. :)


Well, you've got a point there. I have a feeling that w/ multi-core
processors getting pushed into the mainstream, MS may have to start
including dual-core support in it's consumer products. Come to think
of it, I don't know what the core support is in Vista. I will be taking
part in the TAP program w/ MS here in a couple weeks, so I should get an
advanced look at it at least.

Randy S.

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
Well, you've got a point there. I have a feeling that w/ multi-core
processors getting pushed into the mainstream, MS may have to start
including dual-core support in it's consumer products. Come to think
of it, I don't know what the core support is in Vista. I will be taking
part in the TAP program w/ MS here in a couple weeks, so I should get an
advanced look at it at least.

If they have a "home" version of Vista (I hope not), I can pretty much
guarantee it will only support two processors, forcing people with more
powerful machines at home to use the "Pro" version. The "Pro" version of
Vista's "desktop" line (as opposed to whatever the hell Vista Server will
be called) will likely change somewhat from XP Pro. I suspect it will
support some bizarre combination that allows no more than 4 total execution
units on no more than two physical processors.

--
Jeff Rife | "As usual, a knife-wielding maniac
| has shown us the way."
|
| -- Bart Simpson

Is there a way to network with TiVo and second computer?
 

Jeff Rife wrote:
Randy S. ) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:

Well, you've got a point there. I have a feeling that w/ multi-core
processors getting pushed into the mainstream, MS may have to start
including dual-core support in it's consumer products. Come to think
of it, I don't know what the core support is in Vista. I will be taking
part in the TAP program w/ MS here in a couple weeks, so I should get an
advanced look at it at least.


If they have a "home" version of Vista (I hope not), I can pretty much
guarantee it will only support two processors, forcing people with more
powerful machines at home to use the "Pro" version. The "Pro" version of
Vista's "desktop" line (as opposed to whatever the hell Vista Server will
be called) will likely change somewhat from XP Pro. I suspect it will
support some bizarre combination that allows no more than 4 total execution
units on no more than two physical processors.


Ha, Vista will no longer be as simple as Home vs. Pro. Now we'll have:

For home users:

- Vista Starter Edition (basically only available in 3rd world markets)
- Vista Home Basic Edition
- Vista Home Premium Edition
- Vista Ultimate Edition

For Business users:

- Vista Small Business Edition
- Vista Professional Edition
- Vista Enterprise Edition

(all subject to change, of course)

As of yet, it seems that 2 processors is still the max supported, though
I don't believe that an HT-enabled processor counts as 2. I would
presume a dual core processor *would*, however the limitation may be
socket based, and not core based, which would remove a lot of the
limitation.

More info here (warning, overly optimistic marketspeak ahead!):

http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp

Randy S.