Re: AMD64 and NPX
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:35:27PM -0300, cdsinf wrote: Is device npx not needed on a kernel built for FreeBSD 6 AMD64? That is correct. It's an i386 thing. Kris pgpemQyHRusB1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: amd64 + RAID freezing system
On 12/22/05, Georg Auernhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello! i have an amd64 with Sata 80Gig Hardisk and extra RAID: [...] newfs and mounting ar0 works. but as sonn as i am trying to write data on the RAID, the system freezes. i had some problems writing the label to ar0s1d but after some reboots he managed to write the label on ar0. only thing is, i cant write data... Any suggestions? I just dealt with a situation that sounds similar. I have an x86 box with a Promise SATA card with 2 drives in a RAID1 that had been running fairly well for several months. Then it suddenly froze up (no reboot, nothing written to the console). After a power cycle the system froze during fsck. In single user mode I was able to get it mounted readonly without fsck, and could read some files, but before too long it would freeze again. I pulled one of the drives and rebooted. Same behavior. Then I pulled that drive and put the other one back. Fsck completed and it now works fine (aside from no mirroring going on anymore of course). Short version: though it sure seems like one of the drives had gone bad, the Promise card didn't notice. It may say the array is READY you shouldn't trust it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 + RAID freezing system
i have an amd64 with Sata 80Gig Hardisk and extra RAID: [...] newfs and mounting ar0 works. but as sonn as i am trying to write data on the RAID, the system freezes. i had some problems writing the label to ar0s1d but after some reboots he managed to write the label on ar0. only thing is, i cant write data... Any suggestions? Short version: though it sure seems like one of the drives had gone bad, the Promise card didn't notice. It may say the array is READY you shouldn't trust it. But it shouldnt freeze. Its a RAID 10, or do you think there are more than 1 disks broken? -- Georg Auernhammer AltBenutzerberater RUS, Admin Institut für Geophysik ehemal. FTP-Admin, Mirror, WXP-Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 + RAID freezing system
On 12/23/05, Georg Auernhammer [EMAIL PROTECTED] But it shouldnt freeze. Its a RAID 10, or do you think there are more than 1 disks broken? I know it shouldn't freeze, but in my case I had a bad drive and as far as the Promise controller was concerned, the drive was good. Through trial and error I figured out which drive it was (not too hard in my case since there were only 2 drives) and replaced it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 on a Dual Opteron Box
On 10/12/05, Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been encountering some difficulty between OpenLDAP/nss/pam/FreeBSD/samba over the past few months and really since inception. After countless recompiles of samba, working with samba and openldap code, we've traced it to being an issue somwhere between freebsd and openldap using threads, a clean compile of openldap without using threads runs fine, but still seem to have inconsistency with nss portions of it. The conscencus accross a few different threads on various mailing lists seems to be to try running FreeBSD/i386 instead, therefore assuming perhaps that there are some issues with threading/openldap/nss_ldap on the AMD64/64-bit platform. We're currently running 5.3-RELEASE, I'm going to attempt 5.4-RELEASE/amd64 first, if the issues still arises, the next step would be to try 5.4-RELEASE/i386, and if the problem still exists... then back to trying to debug the whole situation. So, given the above information, my question is this: Knowing FreeBSD i386 can be run on AMD64 hardware, is there any disadvantage other than the obvious 64-bit support? We're using dual AMD Opteron based machines with 2GB ECC registered memory, so memory capacity shouldn't be an issue running 32bit, but how about smp support? Also, if anyone might have another idea or option to go with towards fixing the openldap/freebsd issue, that'd be even better still - but to be honest I lack the skills, time, and hardware neccessary to accomplish this on my own. I'm hoping that something between 5.3-RELEASE and 5.4-RELEASE can resolv the issue, or at least to isolate it to FreeBSD/OpenLDAP/Samba/nss_ldap/? as the cause. In short, i386 on AMD64 good, bad, why? -- Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] Windsor Match Plate Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386 is _exactly_ as good on amd64 as it is on i386. Still amd64 is even better. If you can afford to lose a couple of days more, try 6.0-RC1/amd64. It fixes many things, and we'll try and help you debug your setup from there. In his statements Scott Long almost makes an impression that 6.0-RELEASE will be more stable than 4.11 and 5.4. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 on a Dual Opteron Box
Thanks, I did not realize that there was an RC1 out for 6.0 already. Any ideas how far off 6.0-RELEASE may be? Realistically the O/S has become the least important issue on these servers; they're basically ldap/nss clients sharing data via samba from UFS file systems... a drop-in replacement to an NT fileserver/domain controller. I'll see what I can do to maybe get 6.0-RC1 running on a desktop in here somewhere today... even if just to demo it for myself. I'm running Novell's NLD (Novell Linux Desktop; based on Suse Desktop) now on my laptop (the machine which I write this email from now)... I'd MUCH rather be running FreeBSD, but the videocard has issues, and nVidia (bless their hearts) has released binary drivers for FreeBSD, but only for FreeBSD/i386... :( - I have emailed, and nagged to get them to compile/post for amd64, but to no avail thus far. I would love to have FreeBSD on this thing though... -- Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] Windsor Match Plate Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ Andrew P. wrote: On 10/12/05, Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been encountering some difficulty between OpenLDAP/nss/pam/FreeBSD/samba over the past few months and really since inception. After countless recompiles of samba, working with samba and openldap code, we've traced it to being an issue somwhere between freebsd and openldap using threads, a clean compile of openldap without using threads runs fine, but still seem to have inconsistency with nss portions of it. The conscencus accross a few different threads on various mailing lists seems to be to try running FreeBSD/i386 instead, therefore assuming perhaps that there are some issues with threading/openldap/nss_ldap on the AMD64/64-bit platform. We're currently running 5.3-RELEASE, I'm going to attempt 5.4-RELEASE/amd64 first, if the issues still arises, the next step would be to try 5.4-RELEASE/i386, and if the problem still exists... then back to trying to debug the whole situation. So, given the above information, my question is this: Knowing FreeBSD i386 can be run on AMD64 hardware, is there any disadvantage other than the obvious 64-bit support? We're using dual AMD Opteron based machines with 2GB ECC registered memory, so memory capacity shouldn't be an issue running 32bit, but how about smp support? Also, if anyone might have another idea or option to go with towards fixing the openldap/freebsd issue, that'd be even better still - but to be honest I lack the skills, time, and hardware neccessary to accomplish this on my own. I'm hoping that something between 5.3-RELEASE and 5.4-RELEASE can resolv the issue, or at least to isolate it to FreeBSD/OpenLDAP/Samba/nss_ldap/? as the cause. In short, i386 on AMD64 good, bad, why? -- Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] Windsor Match Plate Tool Ltd. http://www.wmptl.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] i386 is _exactly_ as good on amd64 as it is on i386. Still amd64 is even better. If you can afford to lose a couple of days more, try 6.0-RC1/amd64. It fixes many things, and we'll try and help you debug your setup from there. In his statements Scott Long almost makes an impression that 6.0-RELEASE will be more stable than 4.11 and 5.4. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 on a Dual Opteron Box
On 10/12/05, Nathan Vidican [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, I did not realize that there was an RC1 out for 6.0 already. Any ideas how far off 6.0-RELEASE may be? Realistically the O/S has become the least important issue on these servers; they're basically ldap/nss clients sharing data via samba from UFS file systems... a drop-in replacement to an NT fileserver/domain controller. I'll see what I can do to maybe get 6.0-RC1 running on a desktop in here somewhere today... even if just to demo it for myself. I'm running Novell's NLD (Novell Linux Desktop; based on Suse Desktop) now on my laptop (the machine which I write this email from now)... I'd MUCH rather be running FreeBSD, but the videocard has issues, and nVidia (bless their hearts) has released binary drivers for FreeBSD, but only for FreeBSD/i386... :( - I have emailed, and nagged to get them to compile/post for amd64, but to no avail thus far. I would love to have FreeBSD on this thing though... The last 6.0-BETA was as stable as it gets in 90% of cases. We all hope that 6.0-RELEASE is about 10-15 days off. I run 6.0 on desktops and servers since BETA2 - and I have absolutely no issues whatsoever. None. Except for unbelievably fast disk performance. It's wonderful. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 question
Eric Murphy wrote:
[...]
however if i run make buildkernel kernconf=GREED
it runs but uses the GENERIC kernel
This sets the variable ${kernconf}, which is ignored, because make looks
for ${KERNCONF}.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 question
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:05:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Eric Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AMD64 question To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Hey guys im having trouble complieing a custem kernel for this version of BSD I mkae a copy of the GENERIC kernel, editing it for what i want and renameing it to GREED When I move into cd /usr/src and issue make buildkernel KERNCONF=GREED It says GREED is missing and is not there, but it is..it lies in /usr/src/sys/i386/conf If you are indeed running buildkernel on an amd64 machine, your kernel configuration file should be in /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GREED instead of the path you mentioned above. This is why the buildkernel target cannot find it. It looks for a local configuration file at: /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GREED but you have put yours at: /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/GREED ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs. i386
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:46:48 -0500 Joseph Sniderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I install the i386 version of FreeBSD on an AMD64(athelon64) based computer? Yes! Best of luck, Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs. i386
Joseph Sniderman wrote: Can I install the i386 version of FreeBSD on an AMD64(athelon64) based computer? Yes, but what what libs and programs you may install that are i386 based as opposed to 64-bit. You can seriously 'screw' up your system by having several programs be unrunnable if you mix and match 32-bit stuff with 64-bit stuff too much. Also, note that if you're using 32-bit stuff you aren't fully utilizing your 64-bit hardware. And btw, it's Athlon. Good luck, -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs. i386
On Saturday 06 August 2005 21:37, Garrett Cooper wrote: Joseph Sniderman wrote: Can I install the i386 version of FreeBSD on an AMD64(athelon64) based computer? Yes, but what what libs and programs you may install that are i386 based as opposed to 64-bit. You can seriously 'screw' up your system by having several programs be unrunnable if you mix and match 32-bit stuff with 64-bit stuff too much. You only need to mix 32-bit and 64-bit software when you are running the AMD64 version. This is because some binaries are 32-bit only and some ports only work for 32-bit. The AMD64 version has optional compatibility with 32-bit i386 software. AFAIK there is no such compatibility the other way around. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 status
On Thursday 02 June 2005 03:36 pm, Miguel Miranda wrote: Hi list, i have heard a lot of good things about opteron servers, im going to upgrade several old production servers (thinking on hp dl145 or sun v20z, sugestions?), is the amd64 port stable enough to use it on production?, what about performance, will i see a plus if i buy opteron isntead of xeons?. Can you point me to some docs about it?, the archives are very messed up on this topic, thanks --- Miguel I would suggest you browse the AMD64 mailing list archives. From what I've heard/read: 1. It's stable. 2. It's easier to find a compatible motherboard if you stay away from NForce (nVidia) chipsets. 3. Certain ports and drivers (ath, for example) have to be rewritten before they'll work in the AMD64 port. 4. If you need features/programs that don't work in the AMD64 port, you can always install the i386 port since the hardware is backwards compatible. You should see a performance boost over 32 bit hardware even though the software is not 64 bit. Take all of this with a 5 pound bag of salt; and be sure to do your own research. Best of luck, Andrew Gould ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Sounds like the usual bad hardware story..check RAM, power supply, CPU cooling, cabling, etc. kris pgpKNP0L6zNAb.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
OK, removed all misc cards, devices, recabled...attempting to reinstall with 5.3, and I continue to get a kernel: priviledged instruction fault followed by a reboot...RAM is brand new Patriot 2-2-2-5...mem timings? -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:23 AM To: Edgar Martinez Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Sounds like the usual bad hardware story..check RAM, power supply, CPU cooling, cabling, etc. kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
Its using the default bios settings and nothing is overclocked at all.. -Original Message- From: Trevor Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: OK, removed all misc cards, devices, recabled...attempting to reinstall with 5.3, and I continue to get a kernel: priviledged instruction fault followed by a reboot...RAM is brand new Patriot 2-2-2-5...mem timings? -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:23 AM To: Edgar Martinez Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Sounds like the usual bad hardware story..check RAM, power supply, CPU cooling, cabling, etc. kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this computer overclocked at all? I would highly recommend running it at the speeds it was meant to...you can avoid a lot of errors that way. -Trevor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
New error before death Panic: page fault -Original Message- From: Trevor Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: OK, removed all misc cards, devices, recabled...attempting to reinstall with 5.3, and I continue to get a kernel: priviledged instruction fault followed by a reboot...RAM is brand new Patriot 2-2-2-5...mem timings? -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:23 AM To: Edgar Martinez Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Sounds like the usual bad hardware story..check RAM, power supply, CPU cooling, cabling, etc. kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this computer overclocked at all? I would highly recommend running it at the speeds it was meant to...you can avoid a lot of errors that way. -Trevor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
Yep, Tried 5.3 mini, two different 5.3 Disc 1, 5.4RC2 Disc 1 Strangely enough, I disabled in the bios the CPU Cache and although the system is sluggish and slow, it has not freaked out yet.. -Original Message- From: Trevor Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: New error before death Panic: page fault -Original Message- From: Trevor Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: OK, removed all misc cards, devices, recabled...attempting to reinstall with 5.3, and I continue to get a kernel: priviledged instruction fault followed by a reboot...RAM is brand new Patriot 2-2-2-5...mem timings? -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:23 AM To: Edgar Martinez Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Sounds like the usual bad hardware story..check RAM, power supply, CPU cooling, cabling, etc. kris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this computer overclocked at all? I would highly recommend running it at the speeds it was meant to...you can avoid a lot of errors that way. -Trevor Is there perhaps a problem with the burned CD? Did you check the hash after downloading it, and verify the cd's contents after burning it? Sorry it's a stab in the dark, but maybe it'll give you a push in the direction of making it work =D -Trevor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
I appreciate your help! There is NO stupid question or answer...as far as I am concerned ANY help is always WELCOME help...THANKS So, yeah being from the i386 world, I am also aware of the timing quirks in the intel world. The CPU is a 754 pin...specs below..hope this sheds some light on the situation...if anyone wants me to throw up some debug info let me know!! AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1MB L2 Cache, 64-bit Processor for DTR Notebooks - OEM Model# AMA3000BEX5AP Item # N82E16819103444 Specifications: Model: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Core: ClawHammer Operating Frequency: 1.8 GHz FSB: Integrated into Chip Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB Voltage: 1.5V Process: 0.13Micron Socket: Socket 754 Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+ Packaging: OEM(Processor Only) PATRIOT Extreme Performance 184-Pin 512MB DDR PC-3200 w/ XBL Technology, Model PEP5123200+XBL - Retail Model# PEP5123200+XBL Item # N82E16820220036 Specifications: Manufacturer: PDP Systems Speed: DDR400(PC3200) Type: 184-Pin DDR SDRAM Error Checking: Non-ECC Registered/Unbuffered: Unbuffered Cas Latency: 2-2-2-5 T1 Support Voltage: 2.8V Bandwidth: 3.2GB/s Organization: 64M x 64 -Bit Warranty: Lifetime -Original Message- From: Alex Zbyslaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: OK, removed all misc cards, devices, recabled...attempting to reinstall with 5.3, and I continue to get a kernel: priviledged instruction fault followed by a reboot...RAM is brand new Patriot 2-2-2-5...mem timings? I don't know this brand of RAM, and I may be completely wrong but... When looking at 939 pin AMD CPUs, and what memory to get, I noticed that for one major quality RAM maker, the timings they recommended for Intel CPUs were faster than those they recommended for AMD CPUs and your figures look eerily familiar. It was something like 2-2-2-5 for Intel and 2-2.5-2-5 for AMD. I'm no expert on RAM, but your error does sound very hardware related. Can you check the RAM manufacturer's web site to see if they say anything? Also, some motherboards can be very picky about RAM. Is it worth trying with just one RAM chip? Does the machine POST ok with full memory tests on? (It doesn't prove anything, but if a chip is really duff it should find it). A little heretical, I realise, but is there the possibility of trying another OS (Windows, Linux) just to see if you have the same kinds of problems? I'm not copying to the list because I'm no real expert on this kind of thing; just stuff picked up from background reading. If you try any of this and it works can you post back to the list what finally worked? Best, --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
--- Edgar Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Unless someone else can vouch for that MB, it can be a suspect as well. While AMD is good, not all MB's for them are. Also ACPI can cause weird stuff like that too. Perhaps try turning that off or try other settings in the BIOS. I had that problem once. It actually did then when ACPI was turned off in the bios. Best of luck. NMH MSI K8T Neo AMD64 3000 w/1MB Thanks! ## SNIP ## The Large Print Giveth And The Small Print Taketh Away -- Anon __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
Yep first thing I assumed...ACPI was disabled...both in BIOS and via MENU...no joy...UDMA disabled...in fact.. PATA DISABLED (after install via CD) USB DISABLED FDD DIABLED APM DIABLED SMART DISABLED LAN DISABLED SOUND DISABLED FIREWIRE DISABLED =) If you cant tell, I have literally installed over a hundred FBSD boxes and have encountered TONS of caveats...however this one has def got me stumped..after the install, the system seems to be holding stable with the BIOS INTERNAL/EXTERNAL cache disabled...its SLLLOOOWWW but stable... -Original Message- From: NMH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; questions Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) --- Edgar Martinez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. Unless someone else can vouch for that MB, it can be a suspect as well. While AMD is good, not all MB's for them are. Also ACPI can cause weird stuff like that too. Perhaps try turning that off or try other settings in the BIOS. I had that problem once. It actually did then when ACPI was turned off in the bios. Best of luck. NMH MSI K8T Neo AMD64 3000 w/1MB Thanks! ## SNIP ## The Large Print Giveth And The Small Print Taketh Away -- Anon __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. MSI K8T Neo AMD64 3000 w/1MB I was just reading the archives this week at freebsd.org and it leads me to believe msi make crap boards. They can not handle tough loads or lots of ram. I think it was in the amd64 list under a heading that mentioned 8gig of ram. There were several developers that just trashed there msi boards and all the rest of there hardware worked fine in a new board. You should look it up. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:20:23PM -0400, jason henson wrote: snip MSI K8T Neo AMD64 3000 w/1MB I was just reading the archives this week at freebsd.org and it leads me to believe msi make crap boards. They can not handle tough loads or lots of ram. I think it was in the amd64 list under a heading that mentioned 8gig of ram. There were several developers that just trashed there msi boards and all the rest of there hardware worked fine in a new board. You should look it up. There was/is an issue with 4GB RAM, but I don't recall it being only with MSI boards. And since 4GB is the limit for 32-bit addressing, I would rather suspect a 32/64-bitness issue. Personally I've used MSI motherboards in my last four desktops, running Linux or FreeBSD, and have never had issues with them. I'm using a MSI K8T NEO FSR (MS-6702) in my current amd64 box without problems. Roland -- R.F. Smith /\ASCII Ribbon Campaign r s m i t h @ x s 4 a l l . n l \ /No HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ X No Word docs in e-mail public key: http://www.keyserver.net / \Respect for open standards pgpVZaj0wBIHI.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
I think I have nailed it...somewhat... So I set it up so I could ssh to it from my office and try to mess with it...ran solid as a rock...I think got home tonight and checked my logs...nothing bad...so I THEN rebooted went into BIOS and enabled the cache...BAM...errors out every time...threw in ubuntu...craptastic...DISABLED the CACHE...everything smooth...sooo the question now is...MB or CPU?? The CPU is listed as DTR...OMFG WTF is DTR?? (acro-cursing intended..) Model: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ DTR Core: ClawHammer Operating Frequency: 1.8 GHz FSB: Integrated into Chip Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB Voltage: 1.5V Process: 0.13Micron Socket: Socket 754 Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+ Packaging: OEM(Processor Only) -Original Message- From: jason henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez wrote: All, I cant begin to tell you how horrible of a time I have had trying to get this system installed and running. Sysinstall kept throwing up a privilege fault kernel error randomly (7sed...4m.7m..etc), and after I go fast enough to get lucky to an install complete..the system then spends its time periodically rebooting.this is the first venture into AMD64 turf as I historically stick with i386.so any pointers.gotchas.tweaks or tips.. please let me know..I really don't want to give up, so I want to see what can be done to stabilize this. MSI K8T Neo AMD64 3000 w/1MB I was just reading the archives this week at freebsd.org and it leads me to believe msi make crap boards. They can not handle tough loads or lots of ram. I think it was in the amd64 list under a heading that mentioned 8gig of ram. There were several developers that just trashed there msi boards and all the rest of there hardware worked fine in a new board. You should look it up. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install)
Edgar Martinez wrote: I think I have nailed it...somewhat... So I set it up so I could ssh to it from my office and try to mess with it...ran solid as a rock...I think got home tonight and checked my logs...nothing bad...so I THEN rebooted went into BIOS and enabled the cache...BAM...errors out every time...threw in ubuntu...craptastic...DISABLED the CACHE...everything smooth...sooo the question now is...MB or CPU?? The CPU is listed as DTR...OMFG WTF is DTR?? (acro-cursing intended..) Model: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ DTR Core: ClawHammer Operating Frequency: 1.8 GHz FSB: Integrated into Chip Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB Voltage: 1.5V Process: 0.13Micron Socket: Socket 754 Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+ Packaging: OEM(Processor Only) -Original Message- From: jason henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 (former i386 convert)+ FreeBSD various issues in 5.3, 5.4 (pre+post install) Edgar Martinez DTR stands for desktop replacement notebook. You have a cpu for a powerful notebook, but I think it would still be a low powered desktop cpu. Maybe you could try a bios update, but I would you need to rma that cpu. Sounds like it has some bad cache on it? http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articleid=642 http://www.voodoopc.com/boards/messages.aspx?topic=32296forum=2 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/29/amd_cuts_opteron_prices_by/ http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_9486,00.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386
Ok, I have found the solution CFLAGS += -march=k8 and use pkgtools.conf for certain application that doesn't support it. gcc32 gcc33 fr-openoffice ... doesn't the nvidia driver works on amd64 version of freebsd ? ok see ya Le Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:54:00AM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier a écrit: From: Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org To: Bachelier Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 06:54:00 -0500 Subject: Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386 On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:35:32 +0200, Bachelier Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a AMD64 and use FreeBSD 5.4 i386. Why aren't you using the amd64 version of FreeBSD? I have set CPUTYPE=k8 to optimize a little for my computer. I have seen they set march=athlon-mp when it compile something. I you were running amd64, you could use CPUTYPE=athlon64. Ok, I have see they is a difference between march=k8 and march=athlon-mp Have a idea ? Yes, download the ISO for amd64 and install it. :-) Does I compile with march=k8 under cflags ? for example: CFLAGS=-O2 -march=k8 -pipe CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS I think the CXXFLAGS setting is unnecessary, as this will happen by default. Well, what do you think ? I think you should be running amd64. :-) could I optimize more than CPUTYPE=k8 ? Yes. See above. :-) Seriously, though, the amd64 version of FreeBSD is quite stable and usable, and would allow you to take full advantage of your machine's 64-bit architecture. Why settle for less? -- Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- In Unix veritas -- Vincent Bachelier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Language: Francais / English Societ(e/y) : Solintech - http://www.solintech.fr - Serveurs linux Citation (fortune): The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more important to do. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386
On 04 Apr Bachelier Vincent wrote: Does I compile with march=k8 under cflags ? for example: CFLAGS=-O2 -march=k8 -pipe CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS Well, what do you think ? could I optimize more than CPUTYPE=k8 ? ok see ya Don't have an answer to /your/ question, but mine is related (I think). Is it still advisable to have -O -pipe in /etc/make.conf? I have a duron 800. Does the -O2 flag give more errors or is it better than using the -O? -- dick -- http://nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.11 ++ FreeBSD 5.3 + Nai tiruvantel ar vayuvantel i Valar tielyanna nu vilja ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386
Dick Hoogendijk wrote: On 04 Apr Bachelier Vincent wrote: Does I compile with march=k8 under cflags ? for example: CFLAGS=-O2 -march=k8 -pipe CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS Well, what do you think ? could I optimize more than CPUTYPE=k8 ? Don't have an answer to /your/ question, but mine is related (I think). Is it still advisable to have -O -pipe in /etc/make.conf? I have a duron 800. Does the -O2 flag give more errors or is it better than using the -O? To quote the Handbook: ``The optimization -O2 is much slower, and the optimization difference between -O and -O2 is normally negligible.'' The only reason one would want to use -O2 would be perfectionism, I think :) Best wishes, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:35:32 +0200, Bachelier Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a AMD64 and use FreeBSD 5.4 i386. Why aren't you using the amd64 version of FreeBSD? I have set CPUTYPE=k8 to optimize a little for my computer. I have seen they set march=athlon-mp when it compile something. I you were running amd64, you could use CPUTYPE=athlon64. Ok, I have see they is a difference between march=k8 and march=athlon-mp Have a idea ? Yes, download the ISO for amd64 and install it. :-) Does I compile with march=k8 under cflags ? for example: CFLAGS=-O2 -march=k8 -pipe CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS I think the CXXFLAGS setting is unnecessary, as this will happen by default. Well, what do you think ? I think you should be running amd64. :-) could I optimize more than CPUTYPE=k8 ? Yes. See above. :-) Seriously, though, the amd64 version of FreeBSD is quite stable and usable, and would allow you to take full advantage of your machine's 64-bit architecture. Why settle for less? -- Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- In Unix veritas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 optimization on FreeBSD 5.4 i386
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:13:51 +0200, Dick Hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't have an answer to /your/ question, but mine is related (I think). Is it still advisable to have -O -pipe in /etc/make.conf? I have a duron 800. Does the -O2 flag give more errors or is it better than using the -O? -O2 is still iffy for certain architectures, but I believe it's OK now for i386. Go for it. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- In Unix veritas ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
--- Subhro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:53 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre I think that warning people that the good name of FreeBSD is being tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that their snip OH NO!!! ANOTHER AOLer. One more entry added to my kill list. THIS IS MY EARNEST REQUEST TO ALL THE LIST MEMBERS. BANDWIDTH IS VERY COSTLY HERE SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE BANDWIDTH AND TIME BY FEEDING TROLLS. You use gmail, so what bandwidth of yours is it using? Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
If you haven't used amd64 then why are you qualified to comment on the subject? If he's using the same settings for i386 and amd64, then the results should be balanced. I think the point here is that the same settings, which are probably the defaults, run a lot slower on amd64 than i386. And I don't see that you have any insight to provide. I hope FreeBSD hasn't become linux; in that it doesnt work out of the box and you have to selectively kludge it to show good results in any particular benchmark? Thats what made FreeBSD good historically. It was just good in general. -Original Message- From: Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Boris Spirialitious [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:05:59 -0700 Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre Hi Boris, I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet, but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum sustained disk write of 15Mb/s to 90Mb/s on a file server. That said, to help you get a better response to your question I would suggest trying these things: - Document and post your testing procedures and results. This will allow others to get a much clearer picture of what may be happening. As I'm sure you know support via e-mail is very difficult because there is so much information that is missing. - You may want to try the performance list if you don't get any answers from this list. - File a problem report so that the developers are aware of your situation. I don't think that they spend allot of time on this list. (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/index.html) I hope this helps! --Nick What optimizations have you done to this point? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
I think that warning people that the good name of FreeBSD is being tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that their beliefs are completely wrong. A lot of people are wasting a lot of time because of this propaganda. The cluelessness in the performance list is a good indication. -Original Message- From: jason henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500 Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. ___ - Previous Message No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. Instead of minimizing the load, they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is not how you tune performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s with 60% load, which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they were hitting the wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in general. I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying. I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. I take an i386 disk and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 required differences, and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your buildworld runs faster, but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so you likely have a slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell guys swearing that one thing is faster than another. I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But its not going to make things any better. Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD was bad and left us to duke it out. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? I like Nick's followup. I would
RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:53 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre I think that warning people that the good name of FreeBSD is being tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that their snip OH NO!!! ANOTHER AOLer. One more entry added to my kill list. THIS IS MY EARNEST REQUEST TO ALL THE LIST MEMBERS. BANDWIDTH IS VERY COSTLY HERE SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE BANDWIDTH AND TIME BY FEEDING TROLLS. Best Regards S. Indian Institute of Information Technology Subhro Sankha Kar Block AQ-13/1, Sector V Salt Lake City PIN 700091 India smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
Maybe you shouldn't prejudge. Its clear than no one with their own addresses has any answers. -Original Message- From: Subhro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:37:12 +0530 Subject: RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:53 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre I think that warning people that the good name of FreeBSD is being tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that their snip OH NO!!! ANOTHER AOLer. One more entry added to my kill list. THIS IS MY EARNEST REQUEST TO ALL THE LIST MEMBERS. BANDWIDTH IS VERY COSTLY HERE SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE BANDWIDTH AND TIME BY FEEDING TROLLS. Best Regards S. Indian Institute of Information Technology Subhro Sankha Kar Block AQ-13/1, Sector V Salt Lake City PIN 700091 India ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
I think the point of a list is so that someone can say oh yes, I had problems with the em driver in amd64 also; try card X. But instead you get a lot of people with no real idea trying to explain away the problem, as if there is no chance that the amd64 implementant just plain sucks wind. If someone who actually has an amd64 build could post some usage/load numbers, or someone who did some testing with various hardware, that might be useful. So far what we have is like a bunch of Mothers trying to defend their children without having any viable answers or evidence than amd64 is any good at all. Only a people who say nonsensical things like my opteron blows away any P4, like a kid bragging about his mustang or something. The em driver has a standard hold-off of 8000 ints/second, so thats not likely the problem. Its likely to be the same in both i386 and amd64, so its a control. snippage So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit? I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. Check this out: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice Inparticular: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
--- jason henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. ___ - Previous Message No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. Instead of minimizing the load, they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is not how you tune performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s with 60% load, which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they were hitting the wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in general. I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying. I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. I take an i386 disk and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 required differences, and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your buildworld runs faster, but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so you likely have a slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell guys swearing that one thing is faster than another. I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But its not going to make things any better. Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD was bad and left us to duke it out. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit? I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. Check this out: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
I think you may be right. I try Broadcom gigE card with same results. Very slow for amd64 build. With same hardware, very good results with 4.9/i386, not too bad with 5.4-pre/i386, and very, very poor with 5.4-pre/amd64. Boris --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the point of a list is so that someone can say oh yes, I had problems with the em driver in amd64 also; try card X. But instead you get a lot of people with no real idea trying to explain away the problem, as if there is no chance that the amd64 implementant just plain sucks wind. If someone who actually has an amd64 build could post some usage/load numbers, or someone who did some testing with various hardware, that might be useful. So far what we have is like a bunch of Mothers trying to defend their children without having any viable answers or evidence than amd64 is any good at all. Only a people who say nonsensical things like my opteron blows away any P4, like a kid bragging about his mustang or something. The em driver has a standard hold-off of 8000 ints/second, so thats not likely the problem. Its likely to be the same in both i386 and amd64, so its a control. snippage So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit? I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. Check this out: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice Inparticular: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. : Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 01:19 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: -- Emanuel Strobl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning extra is needed for amd64 kernels? 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured duplex/negotiation mode. But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many performance improvements were achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE branch (BETA1 is a relese of FreeBSD 5-STABLE) I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled stream Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with em and 5.3. There are tuning methods but they won't give the big kick. Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your employment you'll see tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy nor can I confirm that for amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if this box isn't productive yet, which it isn't if I understood correctly. I am running 5.4-Pre now. Its the same. Everyone always say try new version, but it always the same. i compare em to em, only difference is amd64 vs i386. So amd64 O/S is this much slower than i386? So why anyone use? Is like nobody know what is going on with this OS. Before, people tell me Opteron on i386 no good. But now that I test, its much better than amd64. Why is there always excuse with FreeBSD 5? Always try next version. Always same slow result? Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. ___ - Previous Message No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. Instead of minimizing the load, they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is not how you tune performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s with 60% load, which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they were hitting the wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in general. I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. I take an i386 disk and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 required differences, and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your buildworld runs faster, but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so you likely have a slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell guys swearing that one thing is faster than another. I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But its not going to make things any better. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
Hi Boris, I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet, but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum sustained disk write of 15Mb/s to 90Mb/s on a file server. That said, to help you get a better response to your question I would suggest trying these things: - Document and post your testing procedures and results. This will allow others to get a much clearer picture of what may be happening. As I'm sure you know support via e-mail is very difficult because there is so much information that is missing. - You may want to try the performance list if you don't get any answers from this list. - File a problem report so that the developers are aware of your situation. I don't think that they spend allot of time on this list. (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/index.html) I hope this helps! --Nick What optimizations have you done to this point? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The answer, Boris, is that the team has no idea what they're doing. Check out some of the threads on performance testing. They tune little pieces here and there, and break 10 other things in the process. Matt Dillon determined that 10,000 ints/second was optimal. Of course if you're passing 10Kpps that means you get an interrupt for every packet. They're playing pin the tail on the donkey. You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to leave it alone. He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his system or settings. Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on? So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that would be wrong. ___ - Previous Message No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS parameter for the em driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead. Instead of minimizing the load, they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is not how you tune performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s with 60% load, which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they were hitting the wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was just a stupid test in general. I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying. I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing. I take an i386 disk and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4 required differences, and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your buildworld runs faster, but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so you likely have a slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a bunch of swell guys swearing that one thing is faster than another. I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But its not going to make things any better. Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD was bad and left us to duke it out. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too? I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit? I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright. Check this out: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice Inparticular: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Re: AMD64 very slow!
Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning extra is needed for amd64 kernels? 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured duplex/negotiation mode. But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many performance improvements were achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE branch (BETA1 is a relese of FreeBSD 5-STABLE) -Harry Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpmGhx7KznWA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AMD64 very slow!
-- Emanuel Strobl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning extra is needed for amd64 kernels? 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured duplex/negotiation mode. But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many performance improvements were achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE branch (BETA1 is a relese of FreeBSD 5-STABLE) I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled stream Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 very slow!
Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 01:19 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: -- Emanuel Strobl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris Spirialitious: I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning extra is needed for amd64 kernels? 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured duplex/negotiation mode. But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many performance improvements were achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE branch (BETA1 is a relese of FreeBSD 5-STABLE) I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled stream Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with em and 5.3. There are tuning methods but they won't give the big kick. Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your employment you'll see tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy nor can I confirm that for amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if this box isn't productive yet, which it isn't if I understood correctly. -Harry Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp19EZKqE8pn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: amd64
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 12:50:55PM -0700, ann kok wrote: I can't install cvsup-without-gui and said it doesn't support amd64 http://people.freebsd.org/~peter/cvsup-without-gui-16.1h.tbz a simple google query would have revealed that link hth, toni -- Wer es einmal so weit gebracht hat, dass er nicht | toni at stderror dot at mehr irrt, der hat auch zu arbeiten aufgehoert| Toni Schmidbauer -- Max Planck | pgpW4dT7x9fb2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AMD64 Woes
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Remi wrote: I just got a new AMD64 laptop(I8254) and it appears to be running at 800MHz on 5.2.1-R CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ (800.03-MHz K8-class CPU) I have no idea how to fix this! Would upgrading to -CURRENT help at all? First, you could start by not cross-posting to three different mailing lists. Then, change the power-saving settings that you have in the system's bios. Laptops do not always run at their rated clock speed. Doing so would have a significant negative impact on the system's battery life. As such, plugging in your laptop before the system posts, will likely yield a Mhz guestimate much closer to what you were expecting. Regards, Andy | Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant | Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 Woes
Just force the cpu speed to high in your bios setup. On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:46:22 -0700, Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got a new AMD64 laptop(I8254) and it appears to be running at 800MHz on 5.2.1-R CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ (800.03-MHz K8-class CPU) I have no idea how to fix this! Would upgrading to -CURRENT help at all? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 Woes
That's exactly the problem. The BIOS won't let me. And the AC line is plugged in. Windows XP Pro detects it correctly, there's something something else going on with BSD. -Original Message- From: Phil Brennan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:33 AM To: Remi Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 Woes Just force the cpu speed to high in your bios setup. On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:46:22 -0700, Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got a new AMD64 laptop(I8254) and it appears to be running at 800MHz on 5.2.1-R CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ (800.03-MHz K8-class CPU) I have no idea how to fix this! Would upgrading to -CURRENT help at all? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
Does Gentoo or FreeBSD have better support for the AMD64 architecture at this point? what is gentoo? is it some new OS or linux distro? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Gentoo or FreeBSD have better support for the AMD64 architecture at this point? what is gentoo? is it some new OS or linux distro? It's a Linux distribution, so I assume the question was meant to be: Does Linux or FreeBSD for the AMD64 architecture at this point? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
--- Björn_Lindström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Gentoo or FreeBSD have better support for the AMD64 architecture at this point? what is gentoo? is it some new OS or linux distro? It's a Linux distribution, so I assume the question was meant to be: Does Linux or FreeBSD for the AMD64 architecture at this point? It doesn't really matter...yes gentoo is a linux distro. and its the only linux distro I would consider with the AMD64 architecture. I was looking to see if anyone here has used (or has knowledge of) both AMD64 OSes' support and functionality for x86-64 applications. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
Does Linux or FreeBSD for the AMD64 architecture at this point? It doesn't really matter...yes gentoo is a linux distro. and its the only linux distro I would consider with the AMD64 architecture. I was looking to see if one moment. distribution is distribution, linux is a kernel. CPU support isn't the distribution feature. they just put everything in one CD/DVD with some installer. anyone here has used (or has knowledge of) both AMD64 OSes' support and functionality for x86-64 applications. i only used NetBSD and it has full support of AMD64 - i mean 64-bit mode both for kernel and userspace, no emulation needed. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Half OT]Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
On Monday 26 July 2004 20:41, jam man wrote: --- Björn_Lindström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does Gentoo or FreeBSD have better support for the AMD64 architecture at this point? what is gentoo? is it some new OS or linux distro? It's a Linux distribution, so I assume the question was meant to be: Does Linux or FreeBSD for the AMD64 architecture at this point? It doesn't really matter...yes gentoo is a linux distro. and its the only linux distro I would consider with the AMD64 architecture. I was looking to see if anyone here has used (or has knowledge of) both AMD64 OSes' support and functionality for x86-64 applications. As a matter of fact, I just got Gentoo up and running next to my Windows partition on my AMD64. There isn't much difference between the two. At least, when building everything from scratch. I got no experience with packages or anything. Gentoo is just a tad harder to get up and running then FreeBSD is, but shouldn't be too much of a problem if you follow the documentation provided at Gentoo's site. One interesting point for desktop users is that Gentoo automatically compiles X.org as a dependency of KDE rather then XFree86. And I must say, my TFT is quite sharper then it was with XFree86. Further some minor things are added to the standard KDE setup, but they aren't worth mentioning. One thing I am missing is that you have an overview of what you can compile into KDE. Gentoo just compiles the base KDE with a few extras and further you'll have to continue to compile the other KDE things from the portage (same thing as the ports-tree) But, on-topic, it's still a matter of preferences and what you're experienced with. There are no complete new features or anything. It's still just FreeBSD or Gentoo, but the OS just talks 64-bit rather then 32-bit. As for the main question, Gentoo or Mandrake or whatever distribution is all the same when looking at AMD64 support and performance, as long as you're using the same kernel. Cheers, Jorn ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT]Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
One interesting point for desktop users is that Gentoo automatically compiles X.org as a dependency of KDE rather then XFree86. And I must say, my TFT is quite sharper then it was with XFree86. Since some days, -current defaults to X.org. Users of other FreeBSD version can update their ports and have a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING howto switch from XFree to X.org Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT]Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
quite sharper then it was with XFree86. Since some days, -current defaults to X.org. Users of other FreeBSD version can update their ports and have a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING howto switch from XFree to X.org i'm of of topic in X.org and XFree - what's the difference? any URL? thanks ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT]Re: AMD64 support: FreeBSD v.s. Gentoo
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:28:02PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: quite sharper then it was with XFree86. Since some days, -current defaults to X.org. Users of other FreeBSD version can update their ports and have a look at /usr/ports/UPDATING howto switch from XFree to X.org i'm of of topic in X.org and XFree - what's the difference? any URL? thanks Dude, search the mailing lists or http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/. Is this really so difficult? -Radek ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 01:17:35AM -0400, Kenneth Culver wrote: Quoting Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Me either. -current actually supports running i386 binaries in amd64 mode. Thats one of the processor's features. :-) You can't run amd64 binaries when booted into an i386 OS, of course. Yeah you can run x86 but you cant' go into regular 32 bit mode that's all. ENOPARSE, can you please restate this? -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Quoting David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 01:17:35AM -0400, Kenneth Culver wrote: Quoting Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Me either. -current actually supports running i386 binaries in amd64 mode. Thats one of the processor's features. :-) You can't run amd64 binaries when booted into an i386 OS, of course. Yeah you can run x86 but you cant' go into regular 32 bit mode that's all. ENOPARSE, can you please restate this? I think what I meant is that once the kernel puts the CPU into amd64 mode, it can't go back into regular x86 mode. It can run x86 binaries but it's not fully back in x86 mode, and I think some of the x86 instructions are gone in 64-bit mode, so it has to emulate them somehow. From what I understand 32-bit binaries run slightly slower when the cpu is in 64-bit mode because of this. From what I've read, you can't make a kernel go back into normal x86 mode until you reboot. You probably know about all this better than I do, it's been a long time since I read any tech specs for the cpu. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Well I just got an email back from the manufacturer of the AMD64 laptop I wanted to buy. Im not sure how it works when switching 64 to i386, but they say it's not supported in the BIOS(I assume this is where it is suppose to be changed) So now I come to a cross roads: 1. Buy a 1.7 Centrino 2. Buy a P4 2.8GHz w/ HT 3. Buy the AMD64 laptop What is the state of the AMD64 version of BSD? Other than that im leaning toward the 1.7GHz Centrino, but I hear a lot of problems with FreeBSD working right with Centrino, is this correct? What are the issues? -Original Message- From: Brooks Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:29 AM To: Kenneth Culver Cc: Michal Pasternak; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Remi; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; David O'Brien Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 06:03:52PM -0400, Kenneth Culver wrote: So far my athlon 64 3200+ has been one of the coolest running processors I've ever owned... although I've never used it in a laptop, my friend's p4 2.8 is running a lot hotter... Yes, current AMD64 CPUs are fairly lower power even without the low-power models. We're seeing 1U dual Opteron boxes running at less then 100F under load. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:58, Remi wrote: toward the 1.7GHz Centrino, but I hear a lot of problems with FreeBSD working right with Centrino, is this correct? What are the issues? Works fine here (Dell Inspiron 8600). - - Modem doesn't work (no suprise) - - Suspend doesn't go below S1 - -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA4R9o5ZPcIHs/zowRAgigAKCa+6ZaUYw/X1sE0RxI6vmjNYyXzACdERi6 9MhT60mgl+UoJwqWejJNX+E= =mV0/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well I just got an email back from the manufacturer of the AMD64 laptop I wanted to buy. Im not sure how it works when switching 64 to i386, but they say it's not supported in the BIOS(I assume this is where it is suppose to be changed) So now I come to a cross roads: 1. Buy a 1.7 Centrino 2. Buy a P4 2.8GHz w/ HT 3. Buy the AMD64 laptop What is the state of the AMD64 version of BSD? Other than that im leaning toward the 1.7GHz Centrino, but I hear a lot of problems with FreeBSD working right with Centrino, is this correct? What are the issues? You can't change the cpu speed while running at the Moment, I don't see any other iusses at the Moment with my Notebook (IBM T40). Arne ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Quoting Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well I just got an email back from the manufacturer of the AMD64 laptop I wanted to buy. Im not sure how it works when switching 64 to i386, but they say it's not supported in the BIOS(I assume this is where it is suppose to be changed) So now I come to a cross roads: 1. Buy a 1.7 Centrino 2. Buy a P4 2.8GHz w/ HT 3. Buy the AMD64 laptop What is the state of the AMD64 version of BSD? Other than that im leaning toward the 1.7GHz Centrino, but I hear a lot of problems with FreeBSD working right with Centrino, is this correct? What are the issues? It runs OK, with some minor nits compared to x86 version. I'm not sure what the laptop maker is talking about... but if you boot the x86 version of FreeBSD, it'll work. I think they meant you can't switch from amd64 to x86 after already booting an OS. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:36:27PM +0200, Arne Schwabe wrote: You can't change the cpu speed while running at the Moment, I don't see any other iusses at the Moment with my Notebook (IBM T40). I too have an IBM T40. It gives me much love, daily. BMS ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Kenneth Culver wrote: It runs OK, with some minor nits compared to x86 version. I'm not sure what the laptop maker is talking about... but if you boot the x86 version of FreeBSD, it'll work. I think they meant you can't switch from amd64 to x86 after already booting an OS. Me either. -current actually supports running i386 binaries in amd64 mode. Thats one of the processor's features. :-) You can't run amd64 binaries when booted into an i386 OS, of course. -- Doug White| FreeBSD: The Power to Serve [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.FreeBSD.org ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Just to clarify exactly what you mean. I can the x86 version of BSD with no changes to the BIOS, jumpers or anything on an AMD64? Sorry in advanced if this is a stupid question, Ive never dealt with anything but x86 -Original Message- From: Kenneth Culver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:31 AM To: Remi Cc: 'Brooks Davis'; 'Michal Pasternak'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'David O'Brien' Subject: RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD Quoting Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well I just got an email back from the manufacturer of the AMD64 laptop I wanted to buy. Im not sure how it works when switching 64 to i386, but they say it's not supported in the BIOS(I assume this is where it is suppose to be changed) So now I come to a cross roads: 1. Buy a 1.7 Centrino 2. Buy a P4 2.8GHz w/ HT 3. Buy the AMD64 laptop What is the state of the AMD64 version of BSD? Other than that im leaning toward the 1.7GHz Centrino, but I hear a lot of problems with FreeBSD working right with Centrino, is this correct? What are the issues? It runs OK, with some minor nits compared to x86 version. I'm not sure what the laptop maker is talking about... but if you boot the x86 version of FreeBSD, it'll work. I think they meant you can't switch from amd64 to x86 after already booting an OS. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Quoting Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Kenneth Culver wrote: It runs OK, with some minor nits compared to x86 version. I'm not sure what the laptop maker is talking about... but if you boot the x86 version of FreeBSD, it'll work. I think they meant you can't switch from amd64 to x86 after already booting an OS. Me either. -current actually supports running i386 binaries in amd64 mode. Thats one of the processor's features. :-) You can't run amd64 binaries when booted into an i386 OS, of course. Yeah you can run x86 but you cant' go into regular 32 bit mode that's all. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Quoting Remi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just to clarify exactly what you mean. I can the x86 version of BSD with no changes to the BIOS, jumpers or anything on an AMD64? Sorry in advanced if this is a stupid question, Ive never dealt with anything but x86 Yeah, no changes anywhere. I have my machine set to triple-boot. First Hard drive is windows, second is x86 freebsd, 3rd is amd64 freebsd. I can boot each of the x86 OS's just like my computer was a normal x86, and I can boot the amd64 with no bios or jumper changes. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On 06/27/04 03:06, Remi wrote: See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks? -Original Message- From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Remi; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. For raw performance it's pretty nice though :) He said Pentium-M. It's a completely different processor than the Pentium 4-M. Designed for mobile computing, it is best described as combining the best features of the Pentium 3 (short(er) pipeline, etc.) and the Pentium 4 (better branch predictor, etc.) with high-end power saving features to form a third processor far superior to the previous two. Here's a first look at the chip: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/ Some benchmarks where a 1.6GHz Pentium-M destroys a 2.2GHz Pentium 4-M: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-13.html http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-14.html Battery life in the 6+ hour range is common with Pentium-M laptops. Here's the first look results (note the Pentium 4-M had a battery with over 20% greater capacity!): http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20030205/centrino-17.html If you value battery life, go with the Pentium-M. If you *most highly* value performance, the Athlon64 is probably the way to go. Jon ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
Quoting Michal Pasternak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: David O'Brien [Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 04:00:26PM -0700]: You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. ... but will it outperform it also by heat dissipation? -- m ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So far my athlon 64 3200+ has been one of the coolest running processors I've ever owned... although I've never used it in a laptop, my friend's p4 2.8 is running a lot hotter... Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 06:03:52PM -0400, Kenneth Culver wrote: So far my athlon 64 3200+ has been one of the coolest running processors I've ever owned... although I've never used it in a laptop, my friend's p4 2.8 is running a lot hotter... Yes, current AMD64 CPUs are fairly lower power even without the low-power models. We're seeing 1U dual Opteron boxes running at less then 100F under load. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form X is the one, true Y is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 pgpw4hEqoYIyH.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
See that's I'm thinking, the raw performance is very attractive to me!! So what's this about a p4 1.7 outperforming a 2.8? You got link to benchmarks? -Original Message- From: Daniel O'Connor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Remi; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. For raw performance it's pretty nice though :) - -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA3j2V5ZPcIHs/zowRAoZpAKCnZMb/Kxk9wElcBhktj9NPDPsPggCgh6b2 iasKpu5F998wHLaC5flWA+E= =QBEE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 02:37:54PM -0700, Remi wrote: Im in the market for a new laptop. Right now I'm looking at HyperSonic laptops. I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
David O'Brien [Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 04:00:26PM -0700]: You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. ... but will it outperform it also by heat dissipation? -- m ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AMD64 vs i386 for FreeBSD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:30, David O'Brien wrote: I have a choice between AMD64 3200+ and a P4 2.8GHz with HT. Which one would you guys recommend to run FreeBSD. Obviously the i386 would be easier to run, so I guess my question is what is the state of the AMD64 FreeBSD version? You do know you can run FreeBSD/i386 on the Athlon64 3200+ laptop, right? :-) A 3200+ running 32-bit FreeBSD will out-perform the P4 2.8GHz running the same OS. A Pentium-M 1.7Ghz will outperform a 2.8Ghz P4 too ;) If battery life is important to you I'd suggest not getting an AMD64. For raw performance it's pretty nice though :) - -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from. -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA3j2V5ZPcIHs/zowRAoZpAKCnZMb/Kxk9wElcBhktj9NPDPsPggCgh6b2 iasKpu5F998wHLaC5flWA+E= =QBEE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 (Intern)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I`m very close to byu a AMD64 system, but I`m not quite sure how it will work on FreeBSD. Is there something I should be aware about? Some mainboards maybe? And how about S-ATA on these boards? (I will probably run 5-CURRENT) -- Med vennlig hilsen Christer Solskogen Telenor Forhandlerservice Tlf 55 55 17 70 - Fax 815 44 155 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . The 64-bit support on FreeBSD is very good, as long as you download the AMD64 ISOs and not the i386 ISOs. As for S-ATA, the support isn't really optimal as far as I know, especially when you're going to use an S-ATA RAID controller. I've tried the 64-bit FreeBSD version on my AMD64 3000+, and it worked just fine. But I switched back to Bill's software since I wanted to make it a gaming machine, and not a real workstation. Cheers, Jorn ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 -CURRENT: portinstall x11/kde3 fails, missing shared libraries
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:04:24 -0800 Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 07:58:35AM +0100, Burkard Meyendriesch wrote: Are there any differences in making ports between i386 STABLE and amd64 CURRENT? What is going wrong? What can I do to solve this? Compare the build logs of the openldap port from i386 and amd64; it's possible the build is turning off shared library support because of a buggy configure script, or something. I have got the same problem with several other libraries on my amd64 box. Here is the relevant difference in config.log between Grimbart (i386 STABLE) and Reineke (amd64 CURRENT) when making libiconv: --- config.log (Reineke) --- LIBICONV='/usr/local/lib/libiconf.a' --- config.log (Grimbart) --- LIBICONV='/usr/local/lib/libiconf.so -Wl, -rpath -Wl, /usr/local/lib' I think this difference is the problem on Reineke. How is LIBICONV generated during the make process? Which part of Reinekes configuration is the reason that it does not make the shared libraries? Burkard -- Burkard Meyendriesch Stevern 2 D-48301 Nottuln ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: amd64 -CURRENT: portinstall x11/kde3 fails, missing shared libraries
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 07:58:35AM +0100, Burkard Meyendriesch wrote: Are there any differences in making ports between i386 STABLE and amd64 CURRENT? What is going wrong? What can I do to solve this? Compare the build logs of the openldap port from i386 and amd64; it's possible the build is turning off shared library support because of a buggy configure script, or something. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AMD64
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:16:49PM -0500, Shah Amit wrote: Hi all, I have an AMD-64 bit processor on my emachines laptop that I got from circuitcity. The model is emachines - 6805 - AMD64Bit, 15 WXGA ... It is a relatively new laptop just released on like 19th Jan. I already inquired with Fedora mailing list and they say Fedora is still very very unstable with AMD64 and has lots of issues. I read on FreeBSD website and it says it is stable released ... I dont know how stable it is for this laptop. If anyone has any experience with this ... If not FreeBSD, if anyone knows which *nix distro I can put on my laptop .. Try asking on the freebsd-amd64 mailing list. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amd64 and FreeBSD performance
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:18:31PM -0400, SKU wrote: Greetings! Can anyone using a Amd64 and FreeBSD comment on the performance times during buildworlds? I currently buildworld 2-3 times a day and am looking for a system that can complete these tasks much quicker. Ask on the amd64 mailing list. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
