On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:00:46AM +0000, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote: > 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".
Until the OS loads network drivers AND configures IP support AND starts accepting packets in, there is nothing for the firewall to do. Certainly on Linux I can make sure iptables is populated (or least has a sane policy set) before I bring up networking. In other words: "Who cares". > 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? Don't know. I think 3ware's controllers do their own NCQ, which is pretty neat. Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/