FreeBSD for intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560
Hi, I am interested in having a production grade BIND9 implementation on FreeBSD. My hardware is as below Intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560 I learned from the site that FreeBSD for ia64 is still in TIER2. Can you please advise me on the below. 1. When it will be moved to TIER1. 2. If I go ahead with the current release what is the risk? Please note this implementation would be mission critical. Thanks in advance. Regards, Debarshi Chakravarti ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD for intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560
Hi, Intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560 I learned from the site that FreeBSD for ia64 is still in TIER2. Can you please advise me on the below. For Intel Xeon, I think you want the amd64 branch. ia64 would be for Ithanium. Bests, Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD for intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560
On 22 July 2010 10:17, Olivier Nicole olivier.nic...@cs.ait.ac.th wrote: Hi, Intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor X5560 I learned from the site that FreeBSD for ia64 is still in TIER2. Can you please advise me on the below. For Intel Xeon, I think you want the amd64 branch. ia64 would be for Ithanium. Bests, Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org We run 20+ large dns caches at work running on freebsd 8 (64bit) one dell 2950 with no major problems. The CPUs are Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU5140 @ 2.33GHz and have 4gb ram, so you should be fine. Just make sure that you limit the size of the caches. I generally leave about 512 MB for the base os and let the cache use the rest. BIND will only use 4GB max though (32bit internal memory addressing), although that might be per cache. If you use views you might want to look at the attach cache feature, to boost cache efficiency. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 on Nehelem Xeon?
On 23 January 2010 01:14, Nerius Landys nlan...@gmail.com wrote: There probably are some. If you are only interested in FreeBSD ports, you can make a list of which ports you need and then inspect their Makefiles to see if there's a flag disabling them on the amd64 architecture. OK thanks. Could you give me an example of a port that is disabled on 64 bit and tell me what I will find in the Makefile, so I can look for it on other ports? emulators/wine: ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386 Additional information for Nehalems is that you should stick to the more widely available models - the 4 core+HTT ones. Some of the more exotic ones (6 core) might have problems with ULE and topology guesswork. The L5506 is a 4 core model without Turbo Boost and without Hyper Threading. It's a power-efficient model. Think that'll be OK? http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40712 Yes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 on Nehelem Xeon?
I'm in the process of purchasing a small Nehelem-based server (Xeon L5506 CPU to be exact). I will be installing some flavor of FreeBSD 8.0 (either i386 32 bit or amd64 64 bit, to be exact). I have no immediate need for a 64 bit server, as none of the processes that I will be running in the forseeable future will require more than 3 gigs of memory. My primary use for the server (which will be in a data center) will be to run video games servers; the exact game I'll be running is based on the ioquake3 open source engine, which compiles and runs fine on FreeBSD, at least 32 bit (have not tried 64 bit FreeBSD yet, but will get around to that). My two concerns when making a decision between 32 bit and 64 bit are: 1. Performance. Will there be any difference in performance between a 64 bit OS and 32 bit on my Nehelem? 2. Availability of software. Will some software run only on 32 bit? Only on 64 bit? Please help me in making this decision. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 on Nehelem Xeon?
Nerius Landys wrote: I'm in the process of purchasing a small Nehelem-based server (Xeon L5506 CPU to be exact). I will be installing some flavor of FreeBSD 8.0 (either i386 32 bit or amd64 64 bit, to be exact). I have no immediate need for a 64 bit server, as none of the processes that I will be running in the forseeable future will require more than 3 gigs of memory. My primary use for the server (which will be in a data center) will be to run video games servers; the exact game I'll be running is based on the ioquake3 open source engine, which compiles and runs fine on FreeBSD, at least 32 bit (have not tried 64 bit FreeBSD yet, but will get around to that). My two concerns when making a decision between 32 bit and 64 bit are: 1. Performance. Will there be any difference in performance between a 64 bit OS and 32 bit on my Nehelem? Probably not so much that you would notice (i.e. not something the users would immediately feel) - for general loads we're talking about low percentages in either direction. But installing a 64-bit OS is more like planning for the future. Maybe you will need more RAM for some application and then you will be stuck with a 32-bit OS. 2. Availability of software. Will some software run only on 32 bit? Only on 64 bit? There probably are some. If you are only interested in FreeBSD ports, you can make a list of which ports you need and then inspect their Makefiles to see if there's a flag disabling them on the amd64 architecture. Another option is that you bring up a 32-bit-only jail and run your 32-bit applications from it. Additional information for Nehalems is that you should stick to the more widely available models - the 4 core+HTT ones. Some of the more exotic ones (6 core) might have problems with ULE and topology guesswork. http://suckit.blog.hu/2009/10/05/freebsd_8_is_it_worth_to_upgrade ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 8.0 amd64 on Nehelem Xeon?
There probably are some. If you are only interested in FreeBSD ports, you can make a list of which ports you need and then inspect their Makefiles to see if there's a flag disabling them on the amd64 architecture. OK thanks. Could you give me an example of a port that is disabled on 64 bit and tell me what I will find in the Makefile, so I can look for it on other ports? Additional information for Nehalems is that you should stick to the more widely available models - the 4 core+HTT ones. Some of the more exotic ones (6 core) might have problems with ULE and topology guesswork. The L5506 is a 4 core model without Turbo Boost and without Hyper Threading. It's a power-efficient model. Think that'll be OK? http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40712 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
OT: XEON W3550?
Maybe some of you have already heard about Intels product change and early EOL of various newly introduced Core-i7 CPUs like i7-940 and i7-965. I was wondering if Intel isn't also changing XEON products to adjust clock speed and replace XEON W3540 with XEON W3550 and XEON W3570 with, say, XEON W3580. Some rumors have it that those XEON CPUs are underway. Well, I want to build a single-socket-server with this XEON CPU type, so due to Intels 'closed' politics maybe one of yours does wants to share some secrets. Thanks in advance. Please reply also to my eMail since I do not subscribe the list. Regards, Oliver ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:54:20 +0100 Chris Nicholls wrote: I recently aquired and IBM eServer x345, which is taking up to 12 hours to build a kernel! I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. I've got mothing similar with my Intel server. Then it was a memory bank to blame. The server has been fine after replacing that bank. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone Internet SP FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
to build a kernel! I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. I've got mothing similar with my Intel server. Then it was a memory bank to blame. The server has been fine after replacing that bank. with no ECC machine it would simply crash. With ECC - it was probably constantly doing ECC that's why it was damn slow. anyway - can hardware give any info for OS about how often ECC corrects errors? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
On Monday, 1 June 2009 at K:49:59 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: I recently aquired and IBM eServer x345, which is taking up to 12 hours to build a kernel! sorry if it's stupod question but do you have softupdates enabled? Yeah, enabled I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. Initally I thought it was the disks causing the problem, but the general usage of the machine and disk I/O is pretty snappy just seems to be CPU intensive operations where things seem to lag. caches disabled? Disk I/O seems fine, and i'm getting good rates when testing with dd and iostat, gstat show what i'd expect. I Initally thought it was the disks but that was due to issues with getting the RAID controller working correctlly which was sovled with the use if the IBM RAID tools cd. Regards -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
On Tuesday, 2 June 2009 at K:54:43 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: to build a kernel! I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. I've got mothing similar with my Intel server. Then it was a memory bank to blame. The server has been fine after replacing that bank. with no ECC machine it would simply crash. With ECC - it was probably constantly doing ECC that's why it was damn slow. anyway - can hardware give any info for OS about how often ECC corrects errors? This feels like the right track, I'll run memtest86 on it later tonight. Regards -- _ Chris Nicholls ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) Timico Network Operations - against HTML, vCards and X ch...@timico.net - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
constantly doing ECC that's why it was damn slow. anyway - can hardware give any info for OS about how often ECC corrects errors? This feels like the right track, I'll run memtest86 on it later tonight. if i'm right memtest86 will not detect anything as too - all errors get corrected. for example - on your DIMM with 72-bit bus (64+8) one pin is dirty and is not connected well. then you'll get a single bit error every few reads/writes, and all will be corrected. If you can disable ECC - do it, and then run memtest so it will detect errors. If you can't, remove all but one DIMM, check if speed improved, if so, remove this and put other DIMM etc.. until you'll find what is bad. Or maybe it will then work fine because it's just contact problem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
Hello List I recently aquired and IBM eServer x345, which is taking up to 12 hours to build a kernel! I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. Initally I thought it was the disks causing the problem, but the general usage of the machine and disk I/O is pretty snappy just seems to be CPU intensive operations where things seem to lag. I've been using kernel builds as a rough benchmark where an older P3 dual 2.4ghz IBM x330 compiles in about 15min under moderate load. I've attached the dmesg with a boot -v from the box in question, any comments would be a great help, also if this is not the best place to post such questions please let me know so i can better direct it. Regards FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE #0: Fri May 1 08:49:13 UTC 2009 r...@walker.cse.buffalo.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC Preloaded elf kernel /boot/kernel/kernel at 0xc0e67000. Preloaded elf module /boot/kernel/acpi.ko at 0xc0e67160. Calibrating clock(s) ... i8254 clock: 1193158 Hz CLK_USE_I8254_CALIBRATION not specified - using default frequency Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 Calibrating TSC clock ... TSC clock: 2793915192 Hz CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz (2793.92-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x4400CNXT-ID,xTPR Instruction TLB: 4 KB, 2 MB or 4 MB pages, fully associative, 128 entries Data TLB: 4 KB or 4 MB pages, fully associative, 64 entries 1st-level data cache: 8 KB, 4-way set associative, sectored cache, 64 byte line size Trace cache: 12K-uops, 8-way set associative 2nd-level cache: 512 KB, 8-way set associative, sectored cache, 64 byte line size real memory = 2147332096 (2047 MB) Physical memory chunk(s): 0x1000 - 0x0009afff, 630784 bytes (154 pages) 0x0010 - 0x003f, 3145728 bytes (768 pages) 0x01025000 - 0x7db85fff, 2092306432 bytes (510817 pages) avail memory = 2091646976 (1994 MB) Table 'FACP' at 0x7ffdff00 Table 'APIC' at 0x7ffdfe80 MADT: Found table at 0x7ffdfe80 MP Configuration Table version 1.4 found at 0xc009cea0 APIC: Using the MADT enumerator. MADT: Found CPU APIC ID 0 ACPI ID 0: enabled SMP: Added CPU 0 (AP) MADT: Found CPU APIC ID 6 ACPI ID 1: enabled SMP: Added CPU 6 (AP) ACPI APIC Table: IBMSERONYXP INTR: Adding local APIC 6 as a target FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 6 bios32: Found BIOS32 Service Directory header at 0xc00fd790 bios32: Entry = 0xfd7a1 (c00fd7a1) Rev = 0 Len = 1 pcibios: PCI BIOS entry at 0xf+0xd7dc pnpbios: Found PnP BIOS data at 0xc00fdf90 pnpbios: Entry = f:444c Rev = 1.0 Other BIOS signatures found: APIC: CPU 0 has ACPI ID 0 APIC: CPU 1 has ACPI ID 1 ULE: setup cpu group 0 ULE: setup cpu 0 ULE: adding cpu 0 to group 0: cpus 1 mask 0x1 ULE: setup cpu group 1 ULE: setup cpu 1 ULE: adding cpu 1 to group 1: cpus 1 mask 0x2 ACPI: RSDP @ 0x0xfdfc0/0x0014 (v 0 IBM ) ACPI: RSDT @ 0x0x7ffdff80/0x0030 (v 1 IBMSERONYXP 0x1000 IBM 0x45444F43) ACPI: FACP @ 0x0x7ffdff00/0x0074 (v 1 IBMSERONYXP 0x1000 IBM 0x45444F43) ACPI: DSDT @ 0x0x7ffdb300/0x4A26 (v 1 IBMSERGEODE 0x1000 MSFT 0x010B) ACPI: FACS @ 0x0x7ffdfe40/0x0040 ACPI: APIC @ 0x0x7ffdfe80/0x0076 (v 1 IBMSERONYXP 0x1000 IBM 0x45444F43) ACPI: ASF! @ 0x0x7ffdfdc0/0x004B (v 16 IBMSERONYXP 0x0001 IBM 0x45444F43) MADT: Found IO APIC ID 14, Interrupt 0 at 0xfec0 ioapic0: Routing external 8259A's - intpin 0 MADT: Found IO APIC ID 13, Interrupt 16 at 0xfec01000 MADT: Found IO APIC ID 12, Interrupt 32 at 0xfec02000 MADT: Interrupt override: source 0, irq 2 ioapic0: Routing IRQ 0 - intpin 2 lapic0: Routing NMI - LINT1 lapic0: LINT1 trigger: edge lapic0: LINT1 polarity: high MADT: Ignoring local NMI routed to ACPI CPU 6 MADT: Forcing active-low polarity and level trigger for SCI ioapic0: intpin 7 polarity: low ioapic0: intpin 7 trigger: level ioapic2 Version 1.1 irqs 32-47 on motherboard ioapic1 Version 1.1 irqs 16-31 on motherboard ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-15 on motherboard cpu0 BSP: ID: 0x VER: 0x00050014 LDR: 0x DFR: 0x lint0: 0x00010700 lint1: 0x0400 TPR: 0x SVR: 0x01ff timer: 0x000100ef therm: 0x0001 err: 0x0001 pcm: 0x0001 wlan_amrr: AMRR Transmit Rate Control Algorithm wlan: 802.11 Link Layer null: null device, zero device random: entropy source, Software, Yarrow nfslock: pseudo-device io: I/O kbd: new array size 4 kbd1 at kbdmux0 mem: memory Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled hptrr: RocketRAID 17xx/2xxx SATA controller driver v1.2 (May 1 2009 08:47:24) npx0: INT 16 interface acpi0: IBM SERONYXP on motherboard ioapic0: routing intpin 7 (ISA IRQ 7) to vector 48 acpi0: [MPSAFE] acpi0: [ITHREAD] acpi0: Power Button (fixed) acpi0: wakeup
Re: IBM x345 Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon poor performance
I recently aquired and IBM eServer x345, which is taking up to 12 hours to build a kernel! sorry if it's stupod question but do you have softupdates enabled? I've spent quite a bit of spare time trawling archives etc for any hints to the reason why. Initally I thought it was the disks causing the problem, but the general usage of the machine and disk I/O is pretty snappy just seems to be CPU intensive operations where things seem to lag. caches disabled? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon Quad with 9 GB RAM - only 4 GB detected
just for sure - after installation is still 4GB detected (with generic kernel) or 9? On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Matej Šerc wrote: Hi all, I am just trying to install FreeBSD 7.1 amd64 distro on the HP ML 150 G5 server and when booting, BIOS detects 9 GB of RAM, but when starting to install the system it is displayed that only 4 GBs are detected. Also the default swap partition size is 4 GB ... What would be the needed steps to enable FreeBSD using the entire memory in the machine? Thank you in advance for your time, Matej ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon Quad with 9 GB RAM - only 4 GB detected
Hello, I have finished the installation and yes, the entire amount is detected. Is this normal behaveour (why does it happen?) Thanks, Matej On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote: just for sure - after installation is still 4GB detected (with generic kernel) or 9? On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Matej Šerc wrote: Hi all, I am just trying to install FreeBSD 7.1 amd64 distro on the HP ML 150 G5 server and when booting, BIOS detects 9 GB of RAM, but when starting to install the system it is displayed that only 4 GBs are detected. Also the default swap partition size is 4 GB ... What would be the needed steps to enable FreeBSD using the entire memory in the machine? Thank you in advance for your time, Matej ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon Quad with 9 GB RAM - only 4 GB detected
I have finished the installation and yes, the entire amount is detected. Is this normal behaveour (why does it happen?) i'm not sure if install kernel is actually /i386 version. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon Quad with 9 GB RAM - only 4 GB detected
Wojciech Puchar wrote: I have finished the installation and yes, the entire amount is detected. Is this normal behaveour (why does it happen?) i'm not sure if install kernel is actually /i386 version. It must be an amd64 kernel, otherwise it would not be usable for fixit things. Also, I don't see any specific exceptions concerning kernels for amd64 in the release build scripts (/usr/src/release). Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb. -- Steve Haflich, in comp.lang.c++ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Xeon Quad with 9 GB RAM - only 4 GB detected
Hi all, I am just trying to install FreeBSD 7.1 amd64 distro on the HP ML 150 G5 server and when booting, BIOS detects 9 GB of RAM, but when starting to install the system it is displayed that only 4 GBs are detected. Also the default swap partition size is 4 GB ... What would be the needed steps to enable FreeBSD using the entire memory in the machine? Thank you in advance for your time, Matej ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
FreeBSD on Intel Xeon processor 5160
Dear Sir, I have IBM x3550 server with Intel Xeon (Dual-Core) processors 5160 @ 3.0 GHz. I need to install FreeBSD 7.0 but I do not know which type of FreeBSD I have to use to take the best performance of the EM64T and Hyperthreading Technologies. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Metias Network and System Administrator Armanious Group ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD on Intel Xeon processor 5160
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Metias Adel wrote: I have IBM x3550 server with Intel Xeon (Dual-Core) processors 5160 @ 3.0 GHz. I need to install FreeBSD 7.0 but I do not know which type of FreeBSD I have to use to take the best performance of the EM64T and Hyperthreading Technologies. Thank you in advance. It depends. You should probably use the amd64 version of you want to use more than 4GB of memory. EMT64 is just intel's term for a chip that uses AMD's 64-bit extensions to x86 architecture. Before installing the amd64 version however, make sure that none of the ports you want to install has ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386 set in it's Makefile. (And note that ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386 amd64 is fine). If you have more servers running i386, and want to centrally compile kernels and ports, it might be better to stick with i386. It is not possible to make a general prediction as to which architicture is faster; that will depend on the workload. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpkON5W4Fdge.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: FreeBSD on Intel Xeon processor 5160
Dear Sir, I have IBM x3550 server with Intel Xeon (Dual-Core) processors 5160 @ 3.0 GHz. I need to install FreeBSD 7.0 but I do not know which type of FreeBSD I have to use to take the best performance of the EM64T and Hyperthreading Technologies. Thank you in advance. EM64T == amd64 so FreeBSD/amd64 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD on Intel Xeon processor 5160
You should probably use the amd64 version of you want to use more than 4GB of memory. AND IF YOU DO NOT. it's normal to use natural architecture, not backward compatibility. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Chris Maness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another thought. Would a Quad Core chip help with compiling applications -- or would it be the same as a dual core or single core chip running at the same clock speed because the compiler is running single thread? Would php processing be benefited by quad a quad core over a dual core. If not, then I guess I should just purchase a dual core chip and save the cabbage up front and wattage to boot. On the compiling front, when running make do this:make -j num of cores to speed up ure compiles. Ans no it probably wouldn't speed up individual runs of Php scrips/apps BUT it will allow you to run more parallel instances without a performance hit. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Josh Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought AMD was Intel compatible. In this case, it's the reverse. Intel's EM64T extensions are compatible with AMD's X86-64. Also don't forget that SSE5 instruction set for x86 was entirely designed by AMD. http://developer.amd.com/cpu/SSE5/Pages/default.aspx ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? Thanks, Chris Maness ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Chris Maness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? Hello Chris, I had a server with an Intel Xeon Quad Core CPU that was running FBSD 7.0 since the day 7.0 was released ( i386 ). Never had a problem with it. Yesterday i moved the server on FBSD 7.0 amd64 to use ZFS. Until now it works like a charm. a nice day, v Thanks, Chris Maness ___ 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: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Chris Maness wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? I would recommend using amd64 FreeBSD port in this case. Some applications are significantly faster in 64 bit mode than in 32 bit mode. Personally, I am useing amd64 FreeBSD on several Intel machines. Very good indeed. Greetings, O.K. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? don't be suggested by amd in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible processor, for example your xeon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Wojciech Puchar wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? don't be suggested by amd in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible processor, for example your xeon Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch (there is probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just fine on a quad core chip. Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? Sorry, all this stuff is rather new to me as I have been running ancient gear for a while. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? don't be suggested by amd in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible processor, for example your xeon Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch You'll have to remove and re-install all ports to make them 64-bits as well. (there is probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Not really. You could do a cross-build to another partition, but you'd have to have one available. Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just fine on a quad core chip. It should. Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo address space on i386, switching to amd64 (with enough RAM) will help. In long (64-bit) mode, amd64 compatible CPUs have more registers available, so that will speed up things. On the other hand, pointers and longs are 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit, which will make the code somewhat larger. Run some benchmarks that are relevant for you on i386 and re-run them after you've switched to amd64 to know for sure. I've been running amd64 since 5.4 on both Athlon64 and recently Core 2 Quad without problems. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgp7WQwya00ZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch (there is probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just fine on a quad core chip. Yes, i386 will run just fine on a 64-bit Xeon. And no, there isn't an easier (well, one could argue it's easy, but tedious) way to convert to an amd64 release. Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? It depends entirely on your workload. Some things benefit, others may actually slow down. One example that seems to benefit in general is multimedia type applications (e.g. media encoding/decoding/transcoding). Josh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Roland Smith wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? don't be suggested by amd in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible processor, for example your xeon Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch You'll have to remove and re-install all ports to make them 64-bits as well. (there is probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Not really. You could do a cross-build to another partition, but you'd have to have one available. Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just fine on a quad core chip. It should. Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo address space on i386, switching to amd64 (with enough RAM) will help. In long (64-bit) mode, amd64 compatible CPUs have more registers available, so that will speed up things. On the other hand, pointers and longs are 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit, which will make the code somewhat larger. Run some benchmarks that are relevant for you on i386 and re-run them after you've switched to amd64 to know for sure. I've been running amd64 since 5.4 on both Athlon64 and recently Core 2 Quad without problems. Roland Thanks guys. It is not a high load server, so I think sticking to i386 sounds like my best option. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
Roland Smith wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote: Wojciech Puchar wrote: Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? don't be suggested by amd in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible processor, for example your xeon Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch You'll have to remove and re-install all ports to make them 64-bits as well. (there is probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Not really. You could do a cross-build to another partition, but you'd have to have one available. Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just fine on a quad core chip. It should. Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo address space on i386, switching to amd64 (with enough RAM) will help. In long (64-bit) mode, amd64 compatible CPUs have more registers available, so that will speed up things. On the other hand, pointers and longs are 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit, which will make the code somewhat larger. Run some benchmarks that are relevant for you on i386 and re-run them after you've switched to amd64 to know for sure. I've been running amd64 since 5.4 on both Athlon64 and recently Core 2 Quad without problems. Roland Another thought. Would a Quad Core chip help with compiling applications -- or would it be the same as a dual core or single core chip running at the same clock speed because the compiler is running single thread? Would php processing be benefited by quad a quad core over a dual core. If not, then I guess I should just purchase a dual core chip and save the cabbage up front and wattage to boot. Thanks, Chris Maness ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:49:37PM -0800, Chris Maness wrote: Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 build on a Xeon Quad Core? It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo address space on i386, switching to amd64 (with enough RAM) will help. In long (64-bit) mode, amd64 compatible CPUs have more registers available, so that will speed up things. On the other hand, pointers and longs are 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit, which will make the code somewhat larger. Run some benchmarks that are relevant for you on i386 and re-run them after you've switched to amd64 to know for sure. snip Another thought. Would a Quad Core chip help with compiling applications -- or would it be the same as a dual core or single core chip running at the same clock speed because the compiler is running single thread? Again, it depends. If you have to compile a lot of C files via a Makefile without much interdependencies you could start make with the -j 8 flag so it can start 8 jobs concurrently. (The number of cores x 2 seems to be the best option). Would php processing be benefited by quad a quad core over a dual core. If not, then I guess I should just purchase a dual core chip and save the cabbage up front and wattage to boot. It could very well benefit. It depends where the bottleneck is in your current setup. It e.g. depends on how many apache and php instances you have running, and how you have compiled apache. Apache 22 is standard compiled with the prefork MPM, which starts 2 processes by default, and can start up to 16 IIRC (both numbers are configurable). A quad processor could make this run faster as long as the rest of the system can keep up. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgphVIBHZkUDv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid)
I always thought AMD was Intel compatible. In this case, it's the reverse. Intel's EM64T extensions are compatible with AMD's X86-64. Josh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
DAve wrote: Chuck Swiger wrote: It might be reasonable to try hyperthreading enabled, as your type of load might be improved by it on Funny that, enabling hyperthreading immediately dropped my load by half, I see CPU0, CPU1, CPU2, CPU3 now in top. I also see my CPU load reporting correctly as well. I see ranges from 10% idle to 80% idle, not locked at 50% and above. That seems to have cured several ills. I will know more Monday at 8:30am when the business email traffic kicks in. DAve Just a quick note, we survived the day in good form. The servers have dropped their load numbers by 50% under a heavy load and by 80% under a normal load. More importantly, Nagios shows that SMTP is always responding and the load balancers are now showing a max of 34 active connections on each server where before they were showing 350+. Connections are opening and closing far far quicker. machdep.hyperthreading_allowed=1 has been added to /etc/sysctl.conf On a related note, I met Chuck back in 1999 in Seattle at a SeaFug meeting. I doubt he remembers me but he and John Polstra coached me through changing from a Mac Admin to a BSD admin. I've read Chuck's posts on multiple maillists that we both have, or do, share subscriptions to. Chuck, you are always helpful, never mean, and you encourage detective work to identify a problem rather than recite the upgrade mantra. Your knowledge has helped countless people over the years, including me. I appreciate that. If you have a wish list, I can't find it. I would sure like to buy you a CD or something since I can't buy you a beer. Thank you for your time, thanks to everyone on the list for their time. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
On May 12, 2008, at 2:27 PM, DAve wrote: On a related note, I met Chuck back in 1999 in Seattle at a SeaFug meeting. I doubt he remembers me but he and John Polstra coached me through changing from a Mac Admin to a BSD admin. I've read Chuck's posts on multiple maillists that we both have, or do, share subscriptions to. Chuck, you are always helpful, never mean, and you encourage detective work to identify a problem rather than recite the upgrade mantra. Your knowledge has helped countless people over the years, including me. I appreciate that. If you have a wish list, I can't find it. I would sure like to buy you a CD or something since I can't buy you a beer. Well, you're most welcome. If you ever show up for one of the Apple events like a MacWorld or WWDC, you might run into me again...or at a Tommy's Tequila run, afterwards. :-) -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
and what most unix users do. It is what a lot of unix users have done historically, but now that there is and still most do. It's not a Unix way versus Other OS Way thing -- its a response to the change in direction hardware development has taken over the past several years. Chip on multichip hardware you can do many different things too - even faster as it's spread over cores. and how much cache RAM there is on each chip. 4 cores and 8MB is just the latest step in that evolutionary arms race. that's much better than more gigaherts way. any unix should support it good - with any kind of load. today i see performance improvements are mostly towards synthetic benchmarks like running 8 threads of mysql server. it looks cool on paper, but we need good performance when running concurrently many different things. if one plan to use single one program - why unix at all? as i've tested 7.0 once, it was on same computer noticably slower under high load of different programs. now i read 6.* is slower than 4.* (i never user 4.*) isn't it something wrong with it?! It depends very much on the application load you have to support and the sort of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that are all the rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threaded applications. did you actually made a comparision with 6.*? not with paper benchmarks but just run 100 different things and check how responsive machine is. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Wojciech Puchar wrote: It depends very much on the application load you have to support and the sort of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that are all the rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threaded applications. did you actually made a comparision with 6.*? not with paper benchmarks but just run 100 different things and check how responsive machine is. My experience is of dealing with servers where each machine typically has a small number of important applications -- frequently only /one/ application -- which it has to run as efficiently as possible, and for a large number of end-users. The most telling example was a MySQL server which we originally configured with 6.3 -- but it just collapsed under the full load when we made it the back end for a popular web forums site. Exactly the same hardware is in use now running 7.0 and not only is that DB server cruising along quite happily, but we've been able to add a bunch more web servers at the front of the site. That's the most remarkable improvement I've seen, but it is not at all untypical. I can't speak to the model of needing to run hundreds of different applications on the same server -- about the closest thing I have to that is my personal laptop (but only dozens of apps, rather than hundreds), and other than being vaguely aware that it seems to be working adequately, I've never even tried to compare before and after performance. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
but just run 100 different things and check how responsive machine is. My experience is of dealing with servers where each machine typically has a small number of important applications -- frequently only /one/ application so why you need unix at all? :) I can't speak to the model of needing to run hundreds of different what is what i do. put everything on one server, only dividing things on many when one is unable to cope (very rare case). applications on the same server -- about the closest thing I have to that is my personal laptop (but only dozens of apps, rather than hundreds), and other than being vaguely aware that it seems to be working adequately, I've try as simple and stupid thing under load cat /dev/zero somefile (on big partition) on 6.* and 7.* and compare both cases. :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Wojciech Puchar wrote: but just run 100 different things and check how responsive machine is. My experience is of dealing with servers where each machine typically has a small number of important applications -- frequently only /one/ application so why you need unix at all? :) At the risk of belabouring the obvious: i) I like the price. Free. ii) I like the operating environment -- CLIs aren't to everyone's taste, but I find they give me the freedom to do what I want without having to jump through a whole lot of hoops. iii) I like the efficiency of the OS -- you get that much more performance out of every machine it's like having additional servers for free. try as simple and stupid thing under load cat /dev/zero somefile (on big partition) on 6.* and 7.* and compare both cases. :) I thought you were pillorying synthetic benchmarks upthread? Filling up a partition with a file of zeros is pretty unlikely as a real-world task. I wouldn't be too disappointed if that didn't run as fast as it possibly could, although I would be distinctly peeved if doing that on a loaded server took up more of the system resources than it had any right or justification to do, to the detriment of anything else running on that machine. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
At the risk of belabouring the obvious: i) I like the price. Free. no system is free too ;) iii) I like the efficiency of the OS -- you get that much more performance out of every machine it's like having additional servers for free. single app writen for bare hardware would be the fastest. you use unix only because software you use require it. simple. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
On Saturday 10 May 2008 09:10:37 Wojciech Puchar wrote: and what most unix users do. It is what a lot of unix users have done historically, but now that there is and still most do. It's not a Unix way versus Other OS Way thing -- its a response to the change in direction hardware development has taken over the past several years. Chip on multichip hardware you can do many different things too - even faster as it's spread over cores. Do you realize your own arguments are in favor of moving to 7.x? Since the concurrency on 7.x with ULE has improved so much more, running multiprogram pipelines or completely different programs will improve as well. And as a bonus you get improved threading for the programs that use them. Secondly, the unix way would be the way that scales best and in practice, machines dedicated to one task scale easier then machines that do it all, especially since you can tune the hardware and kernel. Thirdly, unix also got big, because it was able to split one task over multiple machines. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Good morning. I recently upgraded our two email gateways from 4.8 to 6.2. The required software was upgraded as well which consists of MailScanner and Sendmail. Both had been keep up to date so it was not a jump in required resources. The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. I have been digging through the system, mail lists, forums, anything to help determine the cause of the increased load. Here are some examples of what I am seeing. bash-2.05b# vmstat -w2 procs memory pagedisks faults cpu r b w avmfre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id 12 5 0 2234516 199864 772 4 0 4 431 447 0 0 485 564 927 29 4 67 11 6 0 2229788 181352 8631 0 0 0 5597 0 0 0 294 2592 1236 45 5 50 9 5 0 2227208 168144 6456 0 0 0 4607 0 2 0 278 1333 898 46 4 50 11 5 0 2229068 175868 5164 0 0 0 5423 0 0 0 212 766 541 47 3 50 14 7 0 1948392 236296 8136 0 0 0 12382 0 14 0 368 4135 1504 42 8 50 4 3 2 1744620 321024 7550 0 0 0 13454 0 23 6 752 11417 3919 42 8 50 12 5 0 1951788 258944 12490 0 0 0 11295 0 0 5 727 18566 4844 40 10 50 16 6 0 2155668 214324 8231 0 0 0 4230 0 1 29 724 15531 4381 41 9 50 8 6 1 2044828 242084 4567 0 0 0 9119 0 0 12 774 12196 3225 43 7 50 bash-2.05b# top last pid: 85205; load averages: 12.89, 13.78, 14.66 up 47+15:51:31 15:20:01 126 processes: 12 running, 79 sleeping, 35 zombie CPU states: 43.8% user, 0.0% nice, 6.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 50.0% idle Mem: 1008M Active, 582M Inact, 211M Wired, 78M Cache, 112M Buf, 122M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 304M Used, 3792M Free, 7% Inuse I am suspicious of the kernel being the culprit because the system looks as if it is not working very hard, CPU load never shows above 50% idle. I found one thread which mentions that as an issue and offers a patch. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2007-February/022526.html Currently I am running the SMP-GENERIC kernel and sysctl shows the following. hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 0 machdep.hyperthreading_allowed: 0 kern.smp.cpus: 4 I see dev.cpu.0 through dev.cpu.3 Can anyone offer a solution? Is this a known issue I can easily correct? At this point I am left with either rolling back to 4.11 or trying another OS. I am thinking I have missed something obvious and I need to make a sysctl change to get the system working properly. Any help is appreciated, I'm losing mail. Thanks, Dave -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
DAve wrote: Good morning. I recently upgraded our two email gateways from 4.8 to 6.2. The required software was upgraded as well which consists of MailScanner and Sendmail. Both had been keep up to date so it was not a jump in required resources. The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. FreeBSD 6.2 is I believe slower than 4.11 for single processor systems and processes which pretty much run single threaded -- ie. exactly what you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms you're seeing. Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could get from 4.x at the sort of tasks 4.x is really good at. You should evaluate SCHED_4BSD vs. SCHED_ULE for your workload. SCHED_4BSD is still the default in 7.0, but SCHED_ULE gives better numbers for many workloads, and it only missed being the default in 7.0 because it hadn't had enough time to settle into the tree before the release. SCHED_ULE will be the default from 7.1 onwards. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
On May 9, 2008, at 8:54 AM, DAve wrote: The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. You should look more into the status of the various processes, and how long it takes your mail scanning to process a message compared to previously. It might be the case that the config under 6.2 is allowing more instances to run at once and is just barely nudging the system into excessive paging. Once that happens, performance drops and the system load increases significantly. Do a couple of ps aux | head -20 every 5 minutes or so, and put that data somewhere on a website, the process states will help give a better picture of what's going on. [ ... ] bash-2.05b# top last pid: 85205; load averages: 12.89, 13.78, 14.66 up 47+15:51:31 15:20:01 126 processes: 12 running, 79 sleeping, 35 zombie CPU states: 43.8% user, 0.0% nice, 6.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 50.0% idle Mem: 1008M Active, 582M Inact, 211M Wired, 78M Cache, 112M Buf, 122M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 304M Used, 3792M Free, 7% Inuse I am suspicious of the kernel being the culprit because the system looks as if it is not working very hard, CPU load never shows above 50% idle. I found one thread which mentions that as an issue and offers a patch. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2007-February/022526.html Currently I am running the SMP-GENERIC kernel and sysctl shows the following. hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 0 machdep.hyperthreading_allowed: 0 kern.smp.cpus: 4 I see dev.cpu.0 through dev.cpu.3 Can anyone offer a solution? Is this a known issue I can easily correct? At this point I am left with either rolling back to 4.11 or trying another OS. It might be reasonable to try hyperthreading enabled, as your type of load might be improved by it on -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
software was upgraded as well which consists of MailScanner and Sendmail. Both had been keep up to date so it was not a jump in required resources. The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. do you feel that system goes slower? i think it's just the matter of calculation method - 6.* may calculate it different way. just change in your sendmail config the values in place of xx define(`confQUEUE_LA', `xx') define(`confREFUSE_LA', `xx') as just accepting mail isn't a problem i set confREFUSE_LA very high ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
FreeBSD 6.2 is I believe slower than 4.11 for single processor systems and processes which pretty much run single threaded -- ie. exactly what you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms you're seeing. and what most unix users do. Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could so 4.11 is fastest? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
On May 9, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi- core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could so 4.11 is fastest? For single-processor systems, FreeBSD 4.11 does very well at a lot of tasks. However, Dave apparently has a 4-CPU system (~8 threads if he enabled hyperthreading), and for real SMP hardware, more recent versions of FreeBSD generally perform better than 4.x would. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Wojciech Puchar wrote: software was upgraded as well which consists of MailScanner and Sendmail. Both had been keep up to date so it was not a jump in required resources. The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. do you feel that system goes slower? i think it's just the matter of calculation method - 6.* may calculate it different way. just change in your sendmail config the values in place of xx define(`confQUEUE_LA', `xx') define(`confREFUSE_LA', `xx') as just accepting mail isn't a problem i set confREFUSE_LA very high It is already set to higher than the load we see. I don't see sendmail refusing connections. What happens is I try to test sendmail from another server and the connection never completes. I'm knockin', sendmail ain't answering. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Wojciech Puchar wrote: FreeBSD 6.2 is I believe slower than 4.11 for single processor systems and processes which pretty much run single threaded -- ie. exactly what you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms you're seeing. and what most unix users do. Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could so 4.11 is fastest? I would be inclined to try another version if I knew what the cause of this issue was exactly, and I saw in the release notes that the issue was resolved in 7.X. But I cannot just try a new version on a production server as an experiment. I've hosed this up enough thinking 6.2 was out long enough to not surprise me. I've not compared them on any server running multiple CPUs, but on a single physical CPU server I've yet to see 5.X or 6.X keep up with 4.X. I've been poo poo'd heartily for saying so, more than once. I would hope, and I do think, this is easily solved. I've already had one private email stating a binary upgrade to 6.3 solved the same problem for them. I wish I could find that email again 8^( DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Chuck Swiger wrote: On May 9, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could so 4.11 is fastest? For single-processor systems, FreeBSD 4.11 does very well at a lot of tasks. However, Dave apparently has a 4-CPU system (~8 threads if he enabled hyperthreading), and for real SMP hardware, more recent versions of FreeBSD generally perform better than 4.x would. Single CPU quad core. ps -aux output is up, look under the FBSD dir. I also put up both dmesg.boot files from the servers. http://pixelhammer.com/Dan/ I do appreciate the assistance. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
On May 9, 2008, at 11:55 AM, DAve wrote: For single-processor systems, FreeBSD 4.11 does very well at a lot of tasks. However, Dave apparently has a 4-CPU system (~8 threads if he enabled hyperthreading), and for real SMP hardware, more recent versions of FreeBSD generally perform better than 4.x would. Single CPU quad core. OK. ps -aux output is up, look under the FBSD dir. I also put up both dmesg.boot files from the servers. MailScanner is what is taking up all of the load; tuning that area is where you need to focus. Things which come to mind are trying to limit the max number of children of that being run to something smaller, perhaps 8 or so. Yes, they recommend running 5 * #CPUs, but they also think their instances are going to be around 20MB in size, but yours are running at 100+ MB size. You might find that running sa-update and sa-compile nightly might improve your SpamAssassin performance; I've got a crontab setup which runs the following nightly: % cat /usr/local/bin/update-spamassassin #! /bin/sh PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin sa-update --allowplugins --gpgkey D1C035168C1EBC08464946DA258CDB3ABDE9DC10 --channel saupdates.openprotect.com --channel updates.spamassassin.org sa-compile kill -HUP `cat /var/run/vscan/spamd.pid` (If you aren't running spamd because MailScanner uses builtin interface to SpamAssassin, comment out the last line. But do check the sa-compile docs, you have to make a change for it to be used) Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Chuck Swiger wrote: On May 9, 2008, at 11:55 AM, DAve wrote: For single-processor systems, FreeBSD 4.11 does very well at a lot of tasks. However, Dave apparently has a 4-CPU system (~8 threads if he enabled hyperthreading), and for real SMP hardware, more recent versions of FreeBSD generally perform better than 4.x would. Single CPU quad core. OK. ps -aux output is up, look under the FBSD dir. I also put up both dmesg.boot files from the servers. MailScanner is what is taking up all of the load; tuning that area is where you need to focus. Things which come to mind are trying to limit the max number of children of that being run to something smaller, perhaps 8 or so. Yes, they recommend running 5 * #CPUs, but they also think their instances are going to be around 20MB in size, but yours are running at 100+ MB size. You might find that running sa-update and sa-compile nightly might improve your SpamAssassin performance; I've got a crontab setup which runs the following nightly: % cat /usr/local/bin/update-spamassassin #! /bin/sh PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin sa-update --allowplugins --gpgkey D1C035168C1EBC08464946DA258CDB3ABDE9DC10 --channel saupdates.openprotect.com --channel updates.spamassassin.org sa-compile kill -HUP `cat /var/run/vscan/spamd.pid` (If you aren't running spamd because MailScanner uses builtin interface to SpamAssassin, comment out the last line. But do check the sa-compile docs, you have to make a change for it to be used) Regards, I appologize I should have given more info. We do run sa-update, and sa-compile. We also run 0 scores on most DNSBL tests as we run those at the mta level along with milter-greylist, milter-ahead, pipelining rejection, and greet pause. We have been running a very trimmed down and fine tuned system for about two years now with good results. I do think the upgrade to SA 3.2.4 is very heavy, considerably more resource usage than 3.1.8 which we were running prior to the OS upgrade. I have not changed the settings for MailScanner from our previous install with respect to number of children or to batch size. Previous testing showed that 13 MS children with a batch size of 10 messages was optimal. I can certainly give that a try. I will look at enabling Hyperthreading as well. I've also found this, which may be a clue to the suggestion that a binary upgrade to 6.3 was a solution. DAve http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-April/070986.html -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Chuck Swiger wrote: On May 9, 2008, at 8:54 AM, DAve wrote: The issue I am seeing is that my server load, under the same traffic load, has increased 4 times or more. Where previously we saw a high load on the servers of 5 to 8, we are now seeing 14 to 17. Since the upgrade Sendmail has begun to timeout connections. You should look more into the status of the various processes, and how long it takes your mail scanning to process a message compared to previously. It might be the case that the config under 6.2 is allowing more instances to run at once and is just barely nudging the system into excessive paging. Once that happens, performance drops and the system load increases significantly. Do a couple of ps aux | head -20 every 5 minutes or so, and put that data somewhere on a website, the process states will help give a better picture of what's going on. [ ... ] bash-2.05b# top last pid: 85205; load averages: 12.89, 13.78, 14.66 up 47+15:51:31 15:20:01 126 processes: 12 running, 79 sleeping, 35 zombie CPU states: 43.8% user, 0.0% nice, 6.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 50.0% idle Mem: 1008M Active, 582M Inact, 211M Wired, 78M Cache, 112M Buf, 122M Free Swap: 4096M Total, 304M Used, 3792M Free, 7% Inuse I am suspicious of the kernel being the culprit because the system looks as if it is not working very hard, CPU load never shows above 50% idle. I found one thread which mentions that as an issue and offers a patch. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2007-February/022526.html Currently I am running the SMP-GENERIC kernel and sysctl shows the following. hw.model: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 0 machdep.hyperthreading_allowed: 0 kern.smp.cpus: 4 I see dev.cpu.0 through dev.cpu.3 Can anyone offer a solution? Is this a known issue I can easily correct? At this point I am left with either rolling back to 4.11 or trying another OS. It might be reasonable to try hyperthreading enabled, as your type of load might be improved by it on Funny that, enabling hyperthreading immediately dropped my load by half, I see CPU0, CPU1, CPU2, CPU3 now in top. I also see my CPU load reporting correctly as well. I see ranges from 10% idle to 80% idle, not locked at 50% and above. That seems to have cured several ills. I will know more Monday at 8:30am when the business email traffic kicks in. DAve -- In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FBSD 6.2 Xeon 2.4ghz CPU and high load
Wojciech Puchar wrote: FreeBSD 6.2 is I believe slower than 4.11 for single processor systems and processes which pretty much run single threaded -- ie. exactly what you're trying to run. This would cause exactly the sort of symptoms you're seeing. Actually I was mistaken: I saw 4.11 and 2.4GHz Xeon and assumed the OP was using 2004-era hardware. The whole Quad Core thing just didn't register. and what most unix users do. It is what a lot of unix users have done historically, but now that there is good support coming through for highly threaded, parallelized applications, developers are going to write more and users are going to run more applications that exploit that. It's not a Unix way versus Other OS Way thing -- its a response to the change in direction hardware development has taken over the past several years. Chip manufacturers have all but given up on the race to outdo each other on the MHz or GHz rating of their products. Nowadays it's all about how many CPU cores and how much cache RAM there is on each chip. 4 cores and 8MB is just the latest step in that evolutionary arms race. Try 7.0 instead -- it has all of the speed at multi-threaded, multi-core type stuff but has also regained the sort of performance levels you could so 4.11 is fastest? It depends very much on the application load you have to support and the sort of hardware you have available. For the sort of multicore chips that are all the rage nowadays, I'd go with 7.0 every time, even running single threaded applications. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my processor? Also, by accident, I had CPUTYPE=p4 in my make.conf when I compiled world, kernel, and ports. p4 is a flag from older FreeBSD distributions I think. Will this (this meaning both that p4 may be unrecognized and/or it's not my processor type) cause any problems, or should I recompile everything with the correct CPUTYPE flag? Installing world is a hassle because it's not easy for me to do it from single user mode. Thanks. - Nerius ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 11:55:48 am Nerius Landys wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my processor? Also, by accident, I had CPUTYPE=p4 in my make.conf when I compiled world, kernel, and ports. p4 is a flag from older FreeBSD distributions I think. Will this (this meaning both that p4 may be unrecognized and/or it's not my processor type) cause any problems, or should I recompile everything with the correct CPUTYPE flag? Installing world is a hassle because it's not easy for me to do it from single user mode. Thanks. - Nerius As a general rule, setting a CPUTYPE is something you should try to avoid...there's all sorts of breakage it can cause for very little gain. If you're heart is set on it though, your CPU is a core2. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5A8C 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
Josh Paetzel writes: As a general rule, setting a CPUTYPE is something you should try to avoid...there's all sorts of breakage it can cause for very little gain. Do you have examples? I ask because I've had CPUTYPE? = p4 on this machine for five years - dozens of buildworlds and possibly thousands of port builds - and never had anything attributable to that go wrong. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Nerius Landys wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my processor? I would suggest that you *NOT* set the CPUTYPE. The gains are are minimal compared to the pain you will have if you also use the ports system. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Internet: an empirical test of the idea that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards can produce Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make.conf CPUTYPE Xeon Conroe?
Alike other users how can you compare the benefits pros/cons of setting the CPU type? Documentation reads otherwise and it only mentions possible cons in one section? # CFLAGS controls the compiler settings used when compiling C code. # Note that optimization settings other than -O and -O2 are not recommended # or supported for compiling the world or the kernel - please revert any # nonstandard optimization settings to -O or -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing # before submitting bug reports without patches to the developers. I needs proof :) David- Quoting Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:55:48AM -0800, Nerius Landys wrote: I'm running FreeBSD 7.0 on a server with an Intel Xeon Dual-Core 3060 Conroe (2.4GHz) CPU. I'm wondering what I should set CPUTYPE to in my /etc/make.conf. The file /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf has this information: # (Intel CPUs)core2 core nocona pentium4m pentium4 prescott # pentium3m pentium3 pentium-m pentium2 # pentiumpro pentium-mmx pentium i486 i386 I guess those are the possibilities. Which one should I choose for my processor? I would suggest that you *NOT* set the CPUTYPE. The gains are are minimal compared to the pain you will have if you also use the ports system. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The Internet: an empirical test of the idea that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards can produce Shakespeare ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which version with a Xeon X3210
I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel® EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set. I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but I'm not clear whether I should be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version with a Xeon X3210
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:31:33AM +, Chris Hastie wrote: I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel® EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set. I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but I'm not clear whether I should be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. Either version should work. If you intend to use 4GB (or more) of RAM, then the AMD64 version will work better by allowing you to actually use all of that memory. Otherwise you might as well use the i386 version for better compatibility with binary-only programs/codecs/drivers (mainly affects various multimedia codecs which is probably not very important for a server though.) -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [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: Which version with a Xeon X3210
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 10:31:33AM +, Chris Hastie wrote: I've just ordered a new server based on the Intel Xeon X3210. This is a quad core processor supporting the Intel 64 (formerly known as Intel® EM64T, according to the flyer) instruction set. I plan to install FreeBSD 6.2 on it, but I'm not clear whether I should be using the AMD64 version or the x86 version. If you routinely run out of address space on i386 with your workload, you should use amd64. It is possible for amd64 to be faster than i386 (more registers, among other things), but it depends on the workload (an IO-bound workload will see little difference, I suspect). You'll have to test that. If you depend on binary and/or i386-only ports (e.g. nv driver, wine, flash plugin) you should probably go with i386. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpARDxzq14QS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Question about use CPU Intel Xeon 5150 with FreeBSD
Hello, questions. Please help me. What version of FreeBSD will prefer use on system with CPU Intel Xeon 5150 ? Main problem with choice: i386 or amd64 platforms. -- With best regards, Alexander mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question about use CPU Intel Xeon 5150 with FreeBSD
Hello, questions. -- With best regards, Alexander mailto:[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: Question about use CPU Intel Xeon 5150 with FreeBSD
If you are looking for performance, and amazing speed go for 7.0 AMD64 with SCHED_ULE. On 6/13/07, Alexander Gudimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, questions. Please help me. What version of FreeBSD will prefer use on system with CPU Intel Xeon 5150 ? Main problem with choice: i386 or amd64 platforms. -- With best regards, Alexander mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about use CPU Intel Xeon 5150 with FreeBSD
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:45:39 +0300 Alexander Gudimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, questions. Please help me. What version of FreeBSD will prefer use on system with CPU Intel Xeon 5150 ? Main problem with choice: i386 or amd64 platforms. If it's for a server, or you have a compelling need for 4GB then amd64. If it's for a desktop then I'd suggest i386. 64-bit server software is mature, 64-bit desktop software isn't. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about use CPU Intel Xeon 5150 with FreeBSD
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2007, 14:45 +0300 schrieb Alexander Gudimov: Hello, questions. Please help me. What version of FreeBSD will prefer use on system with CPU Intel Xeon 5150 ? Main problem with choice: i386 or amd64 platforms. amd64 has integrated EMT 64 support for Xeons and Dual/Quad Support for Intel processors... ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5310 CPU
Hi, Does FreeBSD 6.2 support Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5310 CPU and an Intel Xeon 5320 quad core CPU Regards, Ivan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Support Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5310 CPU
Ivan Carey wrote: Hi, Does FreeBSD 6.2 support Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5310 CPU and an Intel Xeon 5320 quad core CPU Regards, Ivan Yes. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
freeBSD installation on intel xeon server SR2500ALBRP model
Hello, Plaese can u inform me that FreeBSD is compatible over intel xeon server with model no SR2500ALBRP. Thanks Naveeed ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dual duo core xeon
hi all.. can i run freebsd 6.* on a dual duo core xeon machine using full cpu capacity? does freebsd run on duo core Intels - i know it does on amds... thanks... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dual duo core xeon
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:58:11 +0500, kalin mintchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can i run freebsd 6.* on a dual duo core xeon machine using full cpu capacity? does freebsd run on duo core Intels - i know it does on amds... From FAQ for FreeBSD 4.X, 5.X, and 6.X: 4.2.2. Does FreeBSD support Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP)? Yes. SMP was enabled by default in the GENERIC kernel as of FreeBSD 5.2. The intention was also to enable it by default for the FreeBSD 5.3 release, but problems running the SMP kernel on certain UP machines led to the decision to disable it until those problems can be addressed. This is a priority for FreeBSD 5.4.' (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/compatibility-processors.html) From FreeBSD/i386 6.2-RELEASE Hardware Notes, 2 Supported Processors and Motherboards: Almost all i386-compatible processors with a floating point unit are supported. All Intel processors beginning with the 80486 are supported, including the 80486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, and variants thereof, such as the Xeon and Celeron processors. ... Symmetric multi-processor (SMP) systems are generally supported by FreeBSD, although in some cases, BIOS or motherboard bugs may generate some problems. Perusal of the archives of the FreeBSD symmetric multiprocessing mailing list may yield some clues. (http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.2R/hardware-i386.html#PROC) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits ) egg and chicken problem ...
On Friday, 2006, December 8 at 3:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Bonnet) wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: Vince wrote: Vince wrote: Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course /pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 /me goes back to sleep now. Vince Vince, OK i'm going to have a try with it I'll let you know how it worked. Well :-( it does not work it seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk this is an egg and chicken problem ! How to rebuild a new patched amd64 ISO as I only have *this* 64 bits machine and cannot acces to hard disks ? I had a similar problem with my 3ware card when I first installed 6.0. The 3ware card was brand new and not yet in the base system, but a driver was posted on their site. How I solved the problem is that I installed another card that was supported in the base system, another hard drive that worked with the card (UltraDMA 133 card/hard drive IIRC). After installing on that hard drive, and patching to support my raid card, I booted off the patched drive and the raid array was then recognized. I used dump/restore to move the patched system from the IDE hard drive to the raid array, then could boot off the raid array as desired and could remove the extra card/hard drive. HTH. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Vince wrote: Vince wrote: Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course /pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 /me goes back to sleep now. Vince Vince, OK i'm going to have a try with it I'll let you know how it worked. -- Kind Regards Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Frank Bonnet wrote: Vince wrote: Vince wrote: Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course /pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 /me goes back to sleep now. Vince Vince, OK i'm going to have a try with it I'll let you know how it worked. Well :-( it does not work it seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits ) egg and chicken problem ...
Frank Bonnet wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: Vince wrote: Vince wrote: Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course /pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 /me goes back to sleep now. Vince Vince, OK i'm going to have a try with it I'll let you know how it worked. Well :-( it does not work it seems the Adaptec patch for serverRAID 8k is not present in 6.2-RC1 as sysinstall does not find any disk this is an egg and chicken problem ! How to rebuild a new patched amd64 ISO as I only have *this* 64 bits machine and cannot acces to hard disks ? -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Peter A. Giessel wrote: It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by searching the archives. If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might be better off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) Thanks again -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Frank Bonnet wrote: Peter A. Giessel wrote: It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by searching the archives. If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might be better off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) you could try installing from the RC-1 images if your impatient. (ISOs in /pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 on your favorite mirror) Vince Thanks again ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Vince wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: Peter A. Giessel wrote: It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by searching the archives. If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might be better off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. Well thanks for your answer, the machine will be our mailhub so its configuration will be close to yours ( except I'll run postfix instead of sendmail ) it will have 7Gb RAM so I have to go for AMD64 I discover after posting my email to the list the the serverRAID shipped with my x3650 is not yet supported at 6.1 (no disk seen at install) but I read in an archive there is a patch (in aac) provided by Adaptec that will be integrated in 6.2 ... If the 6.2 delay is too long I'll try to apply the patch myself, I never did that but there is probably a way to do it :-) you could try installing from the RC-1 images if your impatient. (ISOs in /pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 on your favorite mirror) Sorry lacking coffeee this morning I mean of course /pub/FreeBSD/releases/amd64/ISO-IMAGES/6.2 /me goes back to sleep now. Vince Vince Thanks again ___ 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]
Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
Hello I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ? Of course it is a 64 bits machine infos, links welcome thanks -- Frank ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
On 2006/12/06 0:36, Frank Bonnet seems to have typed: Hello I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ? Of course it is a 64 bits machine infos, links welcome thanks It depends on what you are going to do with it. This question has been asked many times on this e-mail list, so you might want to start by searching the archives. If you are running desktop applications on it (such as X11), you might be better off running the i386 version as some ports don't support AMD64, however, if you have more than 4GB of RAM and/or are running all ports that support AMD64, you'd probably be better off running AMD64. I'm running AMD64 with Apache22, PHP5, MySQL40, Dovecot, Sendmail, SASL2, Horde-IMP, and some other things and it works great (Opteron 246 x2, 4GB RAM, 3Ware raid card), but YMMV. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Which version to use ( Xeon 64 bits )
I just receive a new IBM X3650 server bi-proc XEON and I wonder which version of FreeBSD to use with it I386 or AMD64 ? Do you have more than 4GB of RAM? If not, I'd recommend sticking with i386. There are very few things that will actually run any faster with the AMD64 version (notably, media encoding/decoding and anything else that can take advantage of the 64-bit registers for math operations). Josh ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
amd64 build on xeon
Looking around in /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/, I only see one cpu option - HAMMER. I found some references to CPUTYPE=nocona for make.conf, but what cpu option do I use for Intel 86x64 platform for kernel builds ? thank you all. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone with Xeon 5100s yet?
Anyone have feedback on the new Xeons and the 5000p/v/x chipsets? Is Xen working with VT (Vanderpool)? SSE4 support?, chipset funkyness? fast? stable? anything? I'm tired of waiting for Socket F Opterons w/Pacifica. -- BSD Podcasts @: http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6-STABLE on 6 Gb RAM 2 x Xeon 3.0 HTT GDT RAID5 - how?
Dear FreeBSD gurus, can anyone point me at a good FM where process of _proper_ setting up FreeBSD 6-STABLE on 6 Gb RAM machine w/ 2 x Xeon CPU is described? It also has ICP (former GDT) RAID controller w/RAID-5 configuration (iir0 device). Purpose: just Apache + mod_perl + MySQL 5.x application server. Install went fine, system boots, I'm going to try PAE kernel on it. But somathing makes me doubt that things are going on well... I.e. I worry about strange messages in dmesg output with regard to ACPI, see below; will iir0 work with PAE? Thanks in advanse! Andrew Stesin p.s. Personal copy of your reply is greatly appreciated: for some reason a local mail host hates FreeBSD mailing lists and kills most messages from them. :( Copyright (c) 1992-2006 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE-200606 #0: Sun Jun 4 11:15:14 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP ACPI APIC Table: RCCGCHE Timecounter i8254 frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.66GHz (2665.92-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = GenuineIntel Id = 0xf29 Stepping = 9 Features=0xbfebfbffFPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA ,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE Features2=0x4400CNTX-ID,b14 Logical CPUs per core: 2 real memory = 4077912064 (3889 MB) avail memory = 3992907776 (3807 MB) FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 cpu2 (AP): APIC ID: 6 cpu3 (AP): APIC ID: 7 ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [DEB_] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [MLIB] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [IO__] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [DATA] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [SIO_] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [SB__] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [PM__] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [ICNT] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [ACPI] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [IORG] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [SB__] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [PM__] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [SIO_] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [PM__] had invalid type (String) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [BIOS] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [CMOS] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [KBC_] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) ACPI-0698: *** Warning: Type override - [OEM_] had invalid type (Integer) for Scope operator, changed to (Scope) MADT: Forcing active-low polarity and level trigger for SCI ioapic0 Version 1.1 irqs 0-15 on motherboard ioapic1 Version 1.1 irqs 16-31 on motherboard ioapic2 Version 1.1 irqs 32-47 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 acpi0: RCC GCHE on motherboard acpi0: Power Button (fixed) Timecounter ACPI-safe frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000 acpi_timer0: 32-bit timer at 3.579545MHz port 0x508-0x50b on acpi0 cpu0: ACPI CPU on acpi0 acpi_throttle0: ACPI CPU Throttling on cpu0 cpu1: ACPI CPU on acpi0 acpi_throttle1: ACPI CPU Throttling on cpu1 acpi_throttle1: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle1 attach returned 6 cpu2: ACPI CPU on acpi0 acpi_throttle2: ACPI CPU Throttling on cpu2 acpi_throttle2: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle2 attach returned 6 cpu3: ACPI CPU on acpi0 acpi_throttle3: ACPI CPU Throttling on cpu3 acpi_throttle3: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle3 attach returned 6 acpi_button0: Sleep Button on acpi0 pcib0: ACPI Host-PCI bridge port 0xcf8-0xcff on acpi0 pci0: ACPI PCI bus on pcib0 pci0: display, VGA at device 2.0 (no driver attached) em0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection Version - 3.2.18 port 0x8f00-0x8f3f mem 0xfe5a-0xfe5b irq 30 at device 4.0 on pci0 em0: Ethernet
Re: Reboot hangs on xeon server
Andy Reitz wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Christopher McGee wrote: The server I have is using an Intel SE7501CW2 server board with 1 Xeon 2.0Ghz processor. It's got a Mylex AcceleRAID 170 card with 6 - 36GB scsi drives. When I reboot the machine, via ctrl-alt-del, or typing reboot, it syncs disks, then gives the messages: All buffers synced. Uptime: ##m##s At this point, it just hangs forever and has to be powercycled. I've tried installing 4.11, 5.4 and 6.0 on this box. The only version that works properly is 4.11, however, at this point I would prefer to not put another 4.x box in production. I have tried booting in safe mode and rebooting and I get the same result. I've tried disabling usb in the bios, in the kernel, and in both, and it still has the same results. Any ideas what could fix this? Hi Chris, This is not my area of expertise, but this sounds like an ACPI problem to me. You might try googling that (in conjunction with your motherboard) and see what comes up. HTH, -Andy. I have tried booting up with ACPI disabled. I still experienced the same reboot problem. I also thought that safe mode disabled acpi? I have also updated the bios on the motherboard and the bios on the raid card to see if they were the problem. Same problem persists. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reboot hangs on xeon server
The server I have is using an Intel SE7501CW2 server board with 1 Xeon 2.0Ghz processor. It's got a Mylex AcceleRAID 170 card with 6 - 36GB scsi drives. When I reboot the machine, via ctrl-alt-del, or typing reboot, it syncs disks, then gives the messages: All buffers synced. Uptime: ##m##s At this point, it just hangs forever and has to be powercycled. I've tried installing 4.11, 5.4 and 6.0 on this box. The only version that works properly is 4.11, however, at this point I would prefer to not put another 4.x box in production. I have tried booting in safe mode and rebooting and I get the same result. I've tried disabling usb in the bios, in the kernel, and in both, and it still has the same results. Any ideas what could fix this? Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reboot hangs on xeon server
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Christopher McGee wrote: The server I have is using an Intel SE7501CW2 server board with 1 Xeon 2.0Ghz processor. It's got a Mylex AcceleRAID 170 card with 6 - 36GB scsi drives. When I reboot the machine, via ctrl-alt-del, or typing reboot, it syncs disks, then gives the messages: All buffers synced. Uptime: ##m##s At this point, it just hangs forever and has to be powercycled. I've tried installing 4.11, 5.4 and 6.0 on this box. The only version that works properly is 4.11, however, at this point I would prefer to not put another 4.x box in production. I have tried booting in safe mode and rebooting and I get the same result. I've tried disabling usb in the bios, in the kernel, and in both, and it still has the same results. Any ideas what could fix this? Hi Chris, This is not my area of expertise, but this sounds like an ACPI problem to me. You might try googling that (in conjunction with your motherboard) and see what comes up. HTH, -Andy. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: Low perf of i386 6.0 on dell poweredge 1850 bi-Xeon 2.8ghzDualCore
Hi, Still my performance problem ( for resume mysql three time slower on freebsd 6.0 than 4.11). In fact I do new test on several server and several freebsd release and now be quiet sure that problem come from amr driver. I install 6.0 on other server with perc4 and have same very low performance. To resume : when doing diskinfo -v -t amrd0 with freebsd 6.0 or 5.4 on - bi-xeon 3Ghz and scsi 15.000t hdd on perc4di Raid1 card I have slower results than on - simple AMD 2800+ with ide discs. I have same server with freebsd 4.11 and perfs are 2 or three time better. If it may help I also try freebsd 5.3, it was better but again very fare from 4.11. Does anybody know what may goes wrong with default config of freebsd 5.4, 6.0 or 6.1 beta4? Is there special things to do with amr driver? ( I try with/without smp, acpi but anything change) Thanks for help as it seems to be quiet stupid to have bi-xeon dualcore and install freebsd 4.11. Eric. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: Low perf of i386 6.0 on dell poweredge 1850 bi-Xeon 2.8ghzDualCore
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:14:12PM +0200, Eric wrote: Hi, Still my performance problem ( for resume mysql three time slower on freebsd 6.0 than 4.11). In fact I do new test on several server and several freebsd release and now be quiet sure that problem come from amr driver. I install 6.0 on other server with perc4 and have same very low performance. You never responded to my questions. Kris pgpjB7IH6pILN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Dual xeon
Hi list, We´ve received a xeon dual processor machine, Intel motherboard... What´s the best versionplatform for it ?? i386, ia64 ?? Thanks, Aguiar ___ Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual xeon
At 17:35 2006-03-27, Aguiar Magalhaes wrote: Hi list, We´ve received a xeon dual processor machine, Intel motherboard... What´s the best versionplatform for it ?? i386, ia64 ?? Hi, first of all, from what I know ia64 won't work... That release is for the itanium kinda cpus... You have the choice between amd64 version (it works with processor having the emt64 extensions like the xeon) or the i386 version. If all you need will be compiled from the ports, I highly recommend the amd64 version... If you are planning on installing precompiled binairies you'll find that there is no support nowhere for the amd64 version so I recommend to use i386 Hope this helps ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual xeon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:42:21PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote: If you are planning on installing precompiled binairies you'll find that there is no support nowhere for the amd64 version This is completely false. Kris pgp90n4eT7UkV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual xeon
At 17:49 2006-03-27, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:42:21PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote: If you are planning on installing precompiled binairies you'll find that there is no support nowhere for the amd64 version This is completely false. Sorry I wasn't clear enough... In the commercial vendors... It's really hard to find amd64 versions... Ex: pdflib, zend performance, zend safeguard, etc ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual xeon
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:52:04PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote: At 17:49 2006-03-27, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:42:21PM -0500, Ian Lord wrote: If you are planning on installing precompiled binairies you'll find that there is no support nowhere for the amd64 version This is completely false. Sorry I wasn't clear enough... In the commercial vendors... It's really hard to find amd64 versions... Ex: pdflib, zend performance, zend safeguard, etc But this is true whether or not you use ports or packages on your FreeBSD system. Kris pgp3aCqwFBL4o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Low perf of i386 6.0 on dell poweredge 1850 bi-Xeon 2.8ghzDualCore
Still me ;=) I do new test and have this information to add : Freebsd 6.0 with bi-xeon dual core and smp kernel is two time more slower than Freebsd 4.11 with simple bi-xeon If I configure freebsd 6.0 kernel without smp it's 1.5 faster than with. Here is a resume : The test is simple mysql multi-query php script. With freebsd 4.11 on bi-xeon it took 31 sec With freebsd 6.0 on bi-xeon dual core without smp it took 48 sec With freebsd 6.0 on bi-xeon dual core smp it took 62 sec. Any idea of what's go wrong or way to have expected result? Thanks, Eric. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
