http://www.calxeda.com
Anyone know what the status would be of running our fav OS on these quadcore,
blade based server processors? Running a server at 5W would be reeaal nice,
you know :)
not really 5W. you have to connect some hard drive anyway
I just stumbled on these new ARM based chipsets. Apparently one the
FreeBSD folk was onboard with the company as a software engineer as well.
http://www.calxeda.com
Anyone know what the status would be of running our fav OS on these
quadcore, blade based server processors? Running a server
The padlock(4) man page says that it supports hardware accelerated aes/RNG in
VIA C3, C7 and Eden processors.
The new Nano processor series also includes Padlock, so this processor supported
by FreeBSD's padlock driver although the man page does not mention it?
I am thinking of buying
Hello all.
I hope this question does not sound so stupid. I am sorry in advance.
I am doing my guideline of the activities I need to do to change an
old 2 processors INtel 386 machine with 1GB of ram and 30GB of hard
disk. The machine is working fine but after more than 10 years of
working
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mxwrote:
Hello all.
I hope this question does not sound so stupid. I am sorry in advance.
I am doing my guideline of the activities I need to do to change an old 2
processors INtel 386 machine with 1GB of ram and 30GB
On 5 December 2010 12:39, Jorge Biquez jbiq...@intranet.com.mx wrote:
Hello all.
Hello.
I hope this question does not sound so stupid. I am sorry in advance.
Well, that's life.
I guess that actually we do not have to change the kernel so all processors
can be seen? Am I right ?
http
Is this warning as harmful as it sounds:
WARNING: Non-uniform processors.
WARNING: Using suboptimal topology.
More info:
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7330 @ 2.40GHz (2304.83-MHz 686-class CPU)
ACPI APIC Table: VRTUAL MICROSFT
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs
FreeBSD
Hi--
On Jan 11, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Paul Halliday wrote:
Is this warning as harmful as it sounds:
WARNING: Non-uniform processors.
WARNING: Using suboptimal topology.
More info:
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7330 @ 2.40GHz (2304.83-MHz 686-class
CPU)
ACPI APIC Table: VRTUAL
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 06:01:13 Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am Montag, den 11.05.2009, 19:11 -0400 schrieb Glen Barber:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
if you want limited system - yes
If by
Ghirai wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 06:01:13 Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Am Montag, den 11.05.2009, 19:11 -0400 schrieb Glen Barber:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
if
Hi,
I'm new with FreeBSD setup. Just want to as if Core 2 Duo processor
compatible with FreeBSD.
Thanks a lot..
--
Renato A. Rocabo
mobile: 09208095152
email: cserge...@gmail.com
ym: carlos_serge...@yahoo.com
skype: rrocabo
If you don't write it down, then it never happen
I'm new with FreeBSD setup. Just want to as if Core 2 Duo processor
compatible with FreeBSD.
yes it is.
Olivier
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Renato A. Rocabo cserge...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I'm new with FreeBSD setup. Just want to as if Core 2 Duo processor
compatible with FreeBSD.
Thanks a lot..
--
Renato A. Rocabo
mobile: 09208095152
email: cserge...@gmail.com
ym:
I'm new with FreeBSD setup. Just want to as if Core 2 Duo processor
compatible with FreeBSD.
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Thanks a lot..
--
Renato A. Rocabo
mobile: 09208095152
email: cserge...@gmail.com
ym: carlos_serge...@yahoo.com
skype: rrocabo
If you don't write it down, then it never
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I'm new with FreeBSD setup. Just want to as if Core 2 Duo processor
compatible with FreeBSD.
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
if you want limited system - yes
-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
if you want limited system - yes
If by 'limited' you mean being able to use nVidia drivers, that's not
very 'limited' to me.
--
Glen Barber
Am Montag, den 11.05.2009, 19:11 -0400 schrieb Glen Barber:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
yes. FreeBSD/amd64
Or i386.
if you want limited system - yes
If by 'limited' you mean being able to use nVidia drivers, that's not
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Peter Ulrich Kruppa
ulr...@pukruppa.net wrote:
If by 'limited' you mean being able to use nVidia drivers, that's not
very 'limited' to me.
Please do correct me:
Only Graphic Cards by nVidia are a problem on amd64, everything else can
be run via OpenSource
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Patrick Lamaizière
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Le Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:37:58 +0200,
Riaan Kruger [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I would like to know how IPsec makes use of a multi processor machine?
I have gateway (FreeBSD 7.0) with four SAs configured. When
Le Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:37:58 +0200,
Riaan Kruger [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I would like to know how IPsec makes use of a multi processor machine?
I have gateway (FreeBSD 7.0) with four SAs configured. When testing
throughput through the configured SAs, I see (with systat) that only
one
I would like to know how IPsec makes use of a multi processor machine?
I have gateway (FreeBSD 7.0) with four SAs configured. When testing
throughput through the configured SAs, I see (with systat) that only one cpu
works really hard (+-10% idle min), two others work a bit (+-70% idle min)
and
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:48:24PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
AFAIK, it is not as much a question of ports being broken, but there are
some ports that have 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386' set, e.g. because they are
binary-only ports (e.g. flash plugin, nvidia driver) or because they
contain
you may just copy binaries onto amd64 system and they will work in 32-bit
mode.
As long as you also copy the 32-bit libraries that they need!
binaries means both.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work
think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work on AMD64. Were the ports that are
broken on AMD64 also broken on those other architectures, too?
Most of the ports I've had problems with are desktop applications.
Stuff that doesn't often get installed/used on 64 bit. It's been a
while
of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work on AMD64. Were the ports that are
broken on AMD64 also broken on those other architectures, too?
Most of the ports I've had problems with are desktop applications.
Stuff
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work on AMD64. Were the ports that are
broken on AMD64 also broken
64-bit processors they'd work on
AMD64. Were the ports that are broken on AMD64 also broken on those
other architectures, too?
--
R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F
Roland Smith writes:
To see which ports are restricted to certain architectures, try the
following command:
find /usr/ports -type f -name Makefile -exec grep -H ONLY_FOR_ARCH {} \;|less
This returned 643 entries, of which 29 listed a reason.
Six of those use assembler
AFAIK, it is not as much a question of ports being broken, but there are
some ports that have 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386' set, e.g. because they are
binary-only ports (e.g. flash plugin, nvidia driver) or because they
contain i386 assembly code or because the code contains assumptions that
are true on
if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work on AMD64. Were the ports that are
broken on AMD64 also broken on those other architectures, too
Hello!
I would like to ask you for help with this issue, because about 4 month ago I
tried compile atlas (ports/math/atlas) and today and still with no success. I
still obtain the following assertion error:
10 cases: 10 passed, 0 skipped, 0 failed
Benchmarking xcllttstF
NREPS UPLO N
Martin McCormick wrote:
Is there anything special I need to do to make FreeBSD6.2 make
use of both CPU's on a Dell 2650 mother board?
The boot messages indicate that the OS knows about the 2
CPU's. Is this correct?
I heard some rumors that one has to give some sort of
kernel
--On May 5, 2007 8:49:09 PM -0500 Martin McCormick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there anything special I need to do to make FreeBSD6.2 make
use of both CPU's on a Dell 2650 mother board?
Yes. You will need to compile a custom kernel. It could be as simple as
adding Option SMP to a GENERIC
Is there anything special I need to do to make FreeBSD6.2 make
use of both CPU's on a Dell 2650 mother board?
The boot messages indicate that the OS knows about the 2
CPU's. Is this correct?
I heard some rumors that one has to give some sort of
kernel directive but I haven't
Warning: Non-matching MP
processors, (even though the CPU's are an identical, matched pair of
AMD Athlon 2200+). I've had this happen on a Tyan K7 S2468 mainboards
(Phoenix Bios 4.0 Release 6.0), more than a few times. The problem
seems to remedy itself without intervention, eventually, (several
In response to Jeff Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is a stock kernel config the 'fast' way to go on these CPUs?
Sure wish there was an 'options I_WANNA_GO_FAST' or an 'options
RICKY_BOBBY' that would just do all the right things.
Still not sure which scheduler to go with..
Unless something
suggested as it complains the option is
invalid, plus I did not do this for my other 5.4 server which shows all
processors in top. Both configs have a device of apic, neither has the
APIC_IO option. However, the other server is running 2 physical CPU's
and I see 0 thru 3 in the C column in top. Also
://www.freebsddiary.org/smp.php
I did not add APIC_IO as the doc suggested as it complains the option is
invalid, plus I did not do this for my other 5.4 server which shows all
processors in top. Both configs have a device of apic, neither has the
APIC_IO option. However, the other server is running 2
up in the 'C' column of top after I've rebooted with the newly compiled
kernel.
Run top with the -S argument. You should then see two idle
processes, one for each CPU:
11 root 1 171 52 0K 8K CPU0 0 72.1H 91.70% idle: cpu0
10 root 1 171 52 0K 8K RUN
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 15:04 -0800, Josh Carroll wrote:
up in the 'C' column of top after I've rebooted with the newly compiled
kernel.
Run top with the -S argument. You should then see two idle
processes, one for each CPU:
11 root 1 171 52 0K 8K CPU0 0 72.1H
On 11/15/06, Robert Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like my hyperthreading is enabled and it is in the BIOS. I was
told there was a dual-core in the machine, but not confirmed. But there
should be two with HT anyway as seen, correct?
This is a dmesg from an Intel D830 box:
CPU:
My dmesg matches yours Juha..
Would enabling Hyperthreading increase any of my processing power?
On 11/14/06, Juha Saarinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/15/06, Robert Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like my hyperthreading is enabled and it is in the BIOS. I was
told there was
On 11/15/06, Jeff Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My dmesg matches yours Juha..
Would enabling Hyperthreading increase any of my processing power?
Well, if you have the D830, no, because it doesn't have HTT support. :)
As a general question, the answer is yes and no. Depends on your
On 2006/11/14 15:13, Jeff Mohler seems to have typed:
My dmesg matches yours Juha..
Would enabling Hyperthreading increase any of my processing power?
It depends on load and so forth, most reports I saw vary from a
minimal increase to a large decrease. The first few links from a
google
I thought that since we both had HTT tags in the CPU ID, that we had it.
;)
On 11/14/06, Juha Saarinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/15/06, Jeff Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My dmesg matches yours Juha..
Would enabling Hyperthreading increase any of my processing power?
Well, if you
On 11/15/06, Jeff Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that since we both had HTT tags in the CPU ID, that we had it.
Yeah, well... that's a funny thing that tag. Got it on my
first-generation 1.3GHz Pentium 4 as well. Makes me wonder if Intel
had that feature in the processors very early
, Jeff Mohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought that since we both had HTT tags in the CPU ID, that we had it.
Yeah, well... that's a funny thing that tag. Got it on my
first-generation 1.3GHz Pentium 4 as well. Makes me wonder if Intel
had that feature in the processors very early on, but only
On 9/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To whom it may concern
I have a computer with a dual-core processor. Will FreeBSD operate on
this machine?
Yes, of course.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To whom it may concern
I have a computer with a dual-core processor. Will FreeBSD operate on
this machine?
Please answer this at my e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) . (short and sweet
will suffice)
Thank you
well, without more information. I can definitively say maybe FreeBSD
works just fine on many multi-cpu machines.
On 9/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To whom it may concern
I have a computer with a dual-core processor. Will FreeBSD operate on
this machine?
Please answer
Hello. I quoted the subject of the email directly from the kernel changes
section of the FreeBSD/i386-RELEASE release notes. I am not sure if I am
reading this correctly, but does this mean that people who have Intel-based
processors (such as P4 and Celeron) should not use 6.0 and only use
On 2006-01-09 09:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello. I quoted the subject of the email directly from the kernel
changes section of the FreeBSD/i386-RELEASE release notes. I am not
sure if I am reading this correctly, but does this mean that people
who have Intel-based processors (such as P4
processors (such as P4 and Celeron) should not use 6.0 and
only use 5.4? I want to intsall FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE on a Celeron and a
P4, and to the best of my knowledge they are i386 processors (80386). If
someone could clear this up I would appreciate it.
No, P4 and Celeron are not 80386
not
sure if I am reading this correctly, but does this mean that people
who have Intel-based processors (such as P4 and Celeron) should not
use 6.0 and only use 5.4? I want to intsall FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE
on a Celeron and a P4, and to the best of my knowledge they
are i386 processors (80386
Hello,
I would like to know if FreeBSD 6.0 supports dual-core CPU chips. Note,
dual-core is different from dual CPU.
On Jun. 13, 2005 PT Wired magazine explained a dual-core CPU as the following in a
article titled The New Chips on the Block
A dual-core processor differs from a single-core chip
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 18:57 -0800, Justin Franks wrote:
Hello,
I would like to know if FreeBSD 6.0 supports dual-core CPU chips.
Yes
Note, dual-core is different from dual CPU.
On Jun. 13, 2005 PT Wired magazine explained a dual-core CPU as the following
in a article titled The New Chips
I have an Intel Xeon nocona processor. I noticed when I set the CPU
type that bsd.cpu.mk still thinks it's an AMD processor (per the old
make.conf example file). I was able to change this in the system area
and in the recently downloaded release src version and build a
running system with
when you boot up does the kernel pick up the processor as a nocona or
prescott? or just an amd64?
-Ben
Michael Conlen wrote:
I have an Intel Xeon nocona processor. I noticed when I set the CPU
type that bsd.cpu.mk still thinks it's an AMD processor (per the old
make.conf example file). I
I might have missed it in the long amount of FAQ pages.
Is FreeBSD only for 64bit processors. If so can we set up a Donations to
Brach Janney so that he may use our operating system page.
=)
Thankyou for your time.
And here is a place to send any info you might have that is not posted
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 05:56:38PM -0500, Brach Janney wrote:
I might have missed it in the long amount of FAQ pages.
Is FreeBSD only for 64bit processors. If so can we set up a Donations to
Brach Janney so that he may use our operating system page.
=)
Thankyou for your time.
No, it runs
: Processors
I might have missed it in the long amount of FAQ pages.
Is FreeBSD only for 64bit processors. If so can we set up a Donations to
Brach Janney so that he may use our operating system page.
=)
Thankyou for your time.
And here is a place to send any info you might have that is not posted
Brach Janney wrote:
I might have missed it in the long amount of FAQ pages.
Is FreeBSD only for 64bit processors. If so can we set up a
Donations to Brach Janney so that he may use our operating system page.
=)
Thank you for your time.
And here is a place to send any info you might have
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 03:53:30PM -0800, Sal Aldana wrote:
I was wondering which AMD Processors are compatible with FreeBSD. I have a
Athlon XP 2700 and wanted to know if it would work. I was also going to
build a Dual Processor machine using Athlon MP Processors. If any of these
work
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:03:58PM -0800, Mike Maltese wrote:
For the kernel configuration you can even optimize the compilation for
such processors (5.x only) :
options CPU_ATHLON_SSE_HACK
options CPU_ENABLE_SSE
These are also valid kernel options for 4.x.
Where
options CPU_ATHLON_SSE_HACK
options CPU_ENABLE_SSE
These are also valid kernel options for 4.x.
Where are these documented?
/usr/src/sys/i386/conf/LINT
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
/sys/i386/conf/NOTESon 5.x
Mike Maltese wrote:
options CPU_ATHLON_SSE_HACK
options CPU_ENABLE_SSE
These are also valid kernel options for 4.x.
Where are these documented?
/usr/src/sys/i386/conf/LINT
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was wondering which AMD Processors are compatible with FreeBSD. I have a
Athlon XP 2700 and wanted to know if it would work. I was also going to
build a Dual Processor machine using Athlon MP Processors. If any of these
work could you let me know before I decide to use FreeBSD. Thank you
On Friday 02 January 2004 03:53 pm, Sal Aldana wrote:
I was wondering which AMD Processors are compatible with FreeBSD. I
have a Athlon XP 2700 and wanted to know if it would work. I was
also going to build a Dual Processor machine using Athlon MP
Processors. If any of these work could you let
Here are the 4.9 hardware specs:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.9R/hardware-i386.html
Here are the 5.1 specs:
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.1R/hardware-i386.html
--- Sal Aldana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering which AMD Processors are compatible
with FreeBSD. I have a
Athlon
My 2600+ overclocked doesn't complain on the 5.2 (worked also with
4.9) Don't worry I don't use it a production server ;)
For the kernel configuration you can even optimize the compilation for
such processors (5.x only) :
options CPU_ATHLON_SSE_HACK
options CPU_ENABLE_SSE
and also
For the kernel configuration you can even optimize the compilation for
such processors (5.x only) :
options CPU_ATHLON_SSE_HACK
options CPU_ENABLE_SSE
These are also valid kernel options for 4.x.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http
73 matches
Mail list logo
