Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 Server board!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 27, 2002 5:07:13 AM

okay, heres a notification I received from a distributor in India. Its a Asus board, here are the specs, exactly as the mail said:
Quote:
P4B-LS Mother Board
The Only P4 Server Board available in India.

For P4 (478 Pin)
Intel 845 Chipset
AGP slot / Sound on Board / ATA 100
Adaptec Ultra 160 SCSI On Board
3Com 10/100 Lan on Board
3 DIMM Socket,
Full ATX Form Factor
@ Rs.22500/- + taxes

Well, a few amusing things about it:
1. its a server board for a P4 processor!
2. it has SDRAM DIMM slots on it!!
3. and it costs hell (1 US$ = 48.35 Indian Rupees)
4. its from Asus!

I cant imagine Asus would make a server board for P4 (even Intel hasnt made one!), which sucks with SDRAM even on desktop. Actually, Asus like to call all their boards with the -LS suffix (LAN and SCSI) as server boards. look at CUSL2-LS, CUV4X-LS etc.

I think for a board to qualify as a server board, it needs to have inbuilt management and high availablity options (auto boot etc) with BIOS and self-diagnostic features. although most modern desktop boards have such features, its not good to call them server class boards.

I believe Server material is too different from desktops, Server boards have to be specialised ones with special BIOSes in them. Even Intel has a S815EBM1 server board which is nothing but a modified D815EEA2U, no management, no SCSI, just onboard LAN!

So how many will fall to this Server board for the latest P4 processor which wont perform well or offer any management!?

girish


<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>

More about : server board

February 27, 2002 5:12:44 AM

and no ata 133

...
February 27, 2002 6:51:06 AM

Aside from the onboard SCSI, I see nothing there that is up to the performance requirements of a server. It even has only 3 DIMM slots. Server boards are usually designed to allow the full 4GB of memory. This one would be limited to 3GB.

As far as the ATA133 complaint from the above post, I have one question. Why would anyone use an IDE drive as one of the main drives in a server? I can see possibly having an IDE drive for mass storage or backups. But IDE drives are pathetic in performance when compared to SCSI drives. The latency (seek time) on IDE drives leaves much to be desired. Using a SCSI drive is much like driving a ferrari for the first time. You never know what you are missing until you take one for a test drive. After that it becomes extremely painful driving your old Honda.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
February 27, 2002 6:55:40 AM

Yea but why not have 133 instead of 100? Not as an alternative to scsi just to have the technology that out's there on a new board hehe.

...
February 27, 2002 3:27:26 PM

Why would they bother with ATA133? It offers no performance benefits over ATA100.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
!