Re: How's the nforce4 support in Linux?

[Asfand Yar Qazi <ay1204@qazi.f2s.com>]

Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>> * "hardware firewall" -- sounds silly.  Pretty sure Linux doesn't 
>>> support
>>> it in any case.
>>>
>>
>>
>> probably just one of those things implemented in the binary drivers in
>> software, just like the "hardware" IDE raid is most of the time (3ware
>> being the positive exception there)
>>
> 
> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Previews/nvnforce4/3.html
> 
> You're right there - some semi-hardware support combined with drivers 
> apparently result in lower CPU usage that software firewalls.  Apparently.
> 
> Actually, these people like it:
> http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=712&pageID=1096
> 
> However one feature that you can't laugh at is the fact that it can be 
> made to block packets in the span of time between the OS being loaded 
> up, and the "real" firewall coming up.  This small time span 
> theoretically leaves the PC vulnerable, so I think this is the only use 
> for "ActiveAmor Firewall".
> 
> However, this doesn't answer my original question (which I suppose I 
> should have made clearer): can I get SATA II NCQ support in Linux with 
> an nForce 4 chipset?
> 
> 

Argh already been answered.  Another question: which add-in SATA RAID 
boards (preferably in PCI Express flavour) support NCQ fully and will 
be fully supported in Linux?