On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:03 -0500, Matt Garman wrote: > Is that true for all PCI-X implementations? What's the point, then, > of having PCI-X (64 bit/66 MHz or greater) if you have even one PCI > card (32 bit/33 MHz)? A 32bit/33MHz card only slows down the particular bus it's plugged into. A lot of the server class machines that have had PCI-X in the past made a specific point of using multiple PCI busses for the slots so that plugging in that 32bit/33MHz card wouldn't effect the PCI-X card next to it because they were on physically distinct busses. > A lot of "server" motherboards offer PCI-X and some simple graphics > chip. If you read the motherboard specs, that simple graphics is > usually attached to the PCI bus [1]. So what's the point of having > PCI-X slots if everything is automatically downgraded to PCI speeds > due to the embedded graphics? Again, different physical busses. > I read some of the high-level info on the Intel 6702 PHX PCI-X hub > [2]. If I understand correctly, that controller is actually > attached to the PCI express bus. So to me, it seems possible that > PCI and PCI-X could be independant, and that PCI-X will compete with > PCI-E for bandwidth. > > [1] The ASUS M2N-LR has PCI-X (via the Intel 6702PHX) and an > embedded ATI ES1000 video card. The ES1000's specs say it has a PCI > bus interface. > ES1000: http://ati.amd.com/products/server/es1000/index.html > > [2] http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/303633.htm > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
