<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Mark Hahn wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">extraneous video, I/O, drives and other bus linked hardware and <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">features, likewise ... improves performance. (I notice that some <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">performance system builders also fail to "disable" many built-in <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">features in CMOS BIOS setup ... thus unknowingly degrading <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">processor / bus performance.)</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande; min-height: 16.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">I'm a DIY/minimalist myself, but have never been able to measure</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">any real benefit.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>what are these bios features or extraneous drivers</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Lucida Grande" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">that degrade performance?<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>saving some KB is not a bad thing, but...</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">Well, all extraneous I/O of almost any unneeded type should be disabled, regardless:</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">Example: if the nodes are to be connected via 1000baseT (PCI / PCI-extreme / PCMCIA plugin add on cards) and onboard built in LAN connectors are 100baseT and thus, not used then it should be obvious, but sometimes overlooked, that processor bus communications and performance are enhanced by disabling these extra LAN connections. Not only do these connections "steal" CPU cycles via interrupt IRQ polling, having the CPU spend time generating a default networking protocol on the built in LAN chip via this connection certainly does "steal" a whole lot of CPU time. (On a higher level, multiple protocols on the same LAN connections should likewise be removed or defeated.)</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">Example: Some nodes may have built in audio features. Although these may not prove to be net performance detractors in some cases, reliability may be enhanced by disabling these aka the KISS principle. (Consider: Newbe SysOps may wish to play MP3 files while a node is active.) </P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">Example: depending on the CMOS / BIOS maker, the built in serial and parallel ports actually can steal CPU cycles if not disabled ... even on very modern x86 systems, these interrupt IRQs are still "polled" for activity unless disabled. (Note that some CMOS / BIOS routines that may indicate "disabled" in the setup are actually simply "blocked", the CMOS / BIOS may still be examining or polling the interrupt / IRQ. For those purists concerned about such CPU cycle theft, the BIOS might have to be completely rewritten or a substitute made to maximize CPU performance. [ala The Bill Gates Syndrome = what does IRQ 11 actually do?] )</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">Ed Karns</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">FireWireStuff.com</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">IndustrialComponent.com</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande">USBStuff / FireWireStuff / WireLessStuf / FiberStuf ... and much more</P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande; min-height: 16.0px"><BR></P><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Lucida Grande"><A href="http://industrialcomponent.com/contact.html">http://industrialcomponent.com/contact.html</A></P><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>