I guess that shows just how unexperienced I am with all of this.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Ross Cameron abal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Gal Lis gal_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sorry to ask these mundane questions, but I'm a linux novice.
Linux != FreeBSD
anyway - you SOMEHOW got into that list and not linux one. So you must
know something about FreeBSD anyway :)
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Gal Lis wrote:
I guess that shows just how unexperienced I am with all of this.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Ross Cameron abal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed,
You said 32-bits 6.4 could be loaded .
A question coming to mind is
Can your processor handle 64-bits ?
Please check this issue .
Thank you very much .
Mehmet Erol sanliturk
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Gal Lis galg...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess that shows just how unexperienced I am with
They should definitely support it. My workstation has an Intel E5320 quad
core, and the M600 has a 5400 series chip, but I can't remember which one
exactly. They should definitely be able to handle it.
I downloaded the 7.1 ia64, maybe there is something else I should be
downloading?
On Wed, Mar
Gal Lis wrote:
They should definitely support it. My workstation has an Intel E5320 quad
core, and the M600 has a 5400 series chip, but I can't remember which one
exactly. They should definitely be able to handle it.
I downloaded the 7.1 ia64, maybe there is something else I should be
Well that explains a lot. I will try it and report back. Thanks to everyone
for your help so far!
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Adam Vandemore amvandem...@gmail.comwrote:
Gal Lis wrote:
They should definitely support it. My workstation has an Intel E5320 quad
core, and the M600 has a
ia64 is for Itanium processor . Therefore ia64 can NOT work on Intel Pentium
series processors .
Their architectures are different .
You should download amd64 ISO . amd64 is for both Intel 64 bits and AMD 64
bits pocessors
compatible to each other .
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Gal Lis
Thanks for that, I'm sorry I didn't mention what version I downloaded
earlier. I will reply once I test it out.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote:
ia64 is for Itanium processor . Therefore ia64 can NOT work on Intel
Pentium series processors
Hello,
I have tried installing 7.1 64 bit onto a Dell M600 in an M1000E enclosure for
a client, and the 7.1 disk does not boot. Is there anything you can recommend?
I have installed 6.4 32 bit onto it with no issues.
Thank you.
___
freebsd
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:25:34AM -0700, Gal Lis wrote:
Hello,
I have tried installing 7.1 64 bit onto a Dell M600 in an M1000E
enclosure for a client, and the 7.1 disk does not boot. Is there
anything you can recommend? I have installed 6.4 32 bit onto it with
no issues.
Thank you
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Gal Lis gal_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
I have tried installing 7.1 64 bit onto a Dell M600 in an M1000E enclosure
for a client, and the 7.1 disk does not boot. Is there anything you can
recommend? I have installed 6.4 32 bit onto it with no issues.
Can you
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 04:08:25PM -0700, Gal Lis wrote:
Hi Frank and Glen,
I tried both disks on my workstation, and 6.4 started up, but
there was nothing from 7.1, so maybe my copy is bad. I burned
it using imgburn, and i also have magiciso. How can I check to
make
of the 64 bit architecture.
You may also use i386 branch and use PAE config options if you have more
than 4 GB RAM.
Still, the best idea is to use amd64 version.
Regards,
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
At Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:40:16 +0100,
Andreas Rudisch wrote:
You can use 7.1-RELEASE-i386 (32bit) or 7.1-RELEASE-amd64 (64bit)
depending on whether or not you are going to run 64 bit software or
want to use more than 4GB of RAM.
i would also recommend to use fbsd amd64 if you plan to use zfs
It appears that the both the FreeNX port and the binary nomachine nxserver
ports are both broken and fail to compile. I'm still trying to get
nxserver 3 free forever edition to work. So far I've made some mods to
it's install scripts but I'm bumping up against a strange licensing error
(there is
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)
gahn ipfr...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is the image for intel 64-bit version of freebsd? i have xeon machine
and would like to install freebsd on it.
You can use 7.1-RELEASE-i386 (32bit) or 7.1-RELEASE-amd64 (64bit)
depending on whether or not you are going
RAM)
AFAIK, the NVidia driver does not work (properly/at all) with PAE, 64
bit FreeBSD or more than 4GB of RAM.
Andreas
--
GnuPG key : 0x2A573565|http://www.gnupg.org/howtos/de/
Fingerprint: 925D 2089 0BF9 8DE5 9166 33BB F0FD CD37 2A57 3565
pgps9r2QZmDsc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
It is a little more complicated... i386 also supports 4GB with the PAE
kernel option... it is frequently better to use this then to use amd64
because (a decreasing I hope) number of ports do not compile and/or work
properly on amd64... for example if your using the machine as a GUI desktop
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
It is a little more complicated... i386 also supports 4GB with the PAE
kernel option... it is frequently better to use this then to use amd64
because (a decreasing I hope) number of ports do not compile and/or work
properly on amd64... for example if your using the machine
What is the image for intel 64-bit version of freebsd? i have xeon machine and
would like to install freebsd on it.
it's FreeBSD/amd64, as 64-bit intel is compatible with amd64
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:24 AM, gahn ipfr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all:
What is the image for intel 64-bit version of freebsd? i have xeon machine
and would like to install freebsd on it.
Thanks
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Hi all:
What is the image for intel 64-bit version of freebsd? i have xeon machine and
would like to install freebsd on it.
Thanks
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
Andreas Rudisch wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:24:35 -0800 (PST)
gahn ipfr...@yahoo.com wrote:
What is the image for intel 64-bit version of freebsd? i have xeon machine and
would like to install freebsd on it.
You can use 7.1-RELEASE-i386 (32bit) or 7.1-RELEASE-amd64 (64bit
You may use amd64 version for full support of the 64 functionalities.
Do not get the wrong impression, this is not only for AMD processors and
allow you to use the full strength of the 64 bit architecture.
You may also use i386 branch and use PAE config options if you have more
than 4 GB RAM
Is there a good guide anywhere to writing 64-bit-clean code?
Something that's thorough but understandable, possibly with examples
of the trickier bits.
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:51:40PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
Is there a good guide anywhere to writing 64-bit-clean code?
Something that's thorough but understandable, possibly with examples
of the trickier bits.
Do not assume that the size of a void* equals the size of an integer
Roland Smith writes:
Is there a good guide anywhere to writing 64-bit-clean code?
Something that's thorough but understandable, possibly with examples
of the trickier bits.
For the rest, searching for '64-bit-clean' will give you
thousands of links.
That's the problem
Is there a good guide anywhere to writing 64-bit-clean code?
simply use sizeof() not assumptions
nothing else.
too - don't assume big/little endian system.
actually it's VERY simple.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http
be used as a webserver, e-mail server. and a db server (both PostgresQL and
My SQL Beyond the breaking of the 4 Gig RAM barrier, is there any compelling
reason to use a 32 bit i386 or a 64 bit AMD OS?
the same as using 32-bit software (not 16-bit) on 32-bit CPU
or a 64
bit AMD OS? The machine currently has just a gig of RAM but I'm
going to add more, soon. The machine runs headless and has no xorg,
installed.
A pointer to an article that discusses the 32 bit v 64 bit question
would be appreciated as well.
dell# uname -a
FreeBSD dell.smsd.tv 7.1
Tim Kellers wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I already know it is 64 bit capable. I 'm
interested in finding out if their are measurable performance advantages
to running it using 64 v 32 bit FreeBSD.
For the type of use of the OP (databases, etc.) i don't know, but
for scientific computations
server i don't see a reason to run in 32 bits mode. Contrary to
some frequent assertions the increase in size of binaries is
extremely limited as can easily be checked. This is very largely
program code size is a very little part of system memory today.
Michel Talon wrote:
Tim Kellers wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I already know it is 64 bit capable. I 'm
interested in finding out if their are measurable performance advantages
to running it using 64 v 32 bit FreeBSD.
For the type of use of the OP (databases, etc.) i don't know
I just bought a Dell 2850 (2 2.8GHZ dual core processors). The server
will be used as a webserver, e-mail server. and a db server (both
PostgresQL and My SQL Beyond the breaking of the 4 Gig RAM barrier, is
there any compelling reason to use a 32 bit i386 or a 64 bit AMD OS?
The machine
Tim Kellers wrote:
I just bought a Dell 2850 (2 2.8GHZ dual core processors). The server
will be used as a webserver, e-mail server. and a db server (both
PostgresQL and My SQL Beyond the breaking of the 4 Gig RAM barrier,
is there any compelling reason to use a 32 bit i386 or a 64 bit AMD
Jeremy wrote:
: this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit
: program. it can't work
:
:rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
:
: The same problem happens with the Linux run time linker - it merrily
: tries to link FreeBSD libraries
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem happens with the Linux run time
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Daniel O'Connor wrote:
: On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
: this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
: can't work
:
:rtld shouldn't attempt
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 01:31:16 M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Daniel O'Connor wrote:
: On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
: this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld?
-aps
It is not. In case it was not clear before, I maintain that you _ask_
rtld for wrong behaviour and you get back what you asked for, down to
the letter. 'Tasting'
behaviour and you get back what you asked for, down to
the letter. 'Tasting' libraries just because someone somewhere want to
screw up their configuration does not seem right to me at all.
I maintain that rtld should not load 32-bit libraries for a 64-bit
binary. That is WRONG anyway you look
should not load 32-bit libraries for a 64-bit
binary. That is WRONG anyway you look at it. And again, if it checked
the arch type and skipped libutil.so.5 in /usr/lib32 it would fall
back to checking /lib and things would work. Moreover, if /usr/lib
had major number links just like /usr/lib32
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
what do you expect else?
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
___
freebsd
On 2008-Oct-24 10:43:04 +0200, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
what do you expect else?
Well, the rtld should be smart enough to recognize 32-bit .so's and
skip
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Peter Jeremy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-Oct-24 10:43:04 +0200, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
what do you expect else
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem happens with the Linux run time linker - it merrily tries to
link FreeBSD
Hello:
I have some weird behavior I'm trying to figure out and was wondering
if someone can point me in the right direction. I'm running a FreeBSD
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
For example:
[EMAIL
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you look at the rtld(1) man page, there are a number of environment
variables you can set to debug the loader. I'm not sure how helpful
they are, though.
You can rebuild rtld(1) with debugging enabled:
% cd /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf
% make
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have some weird behavior I'm trying to figure out and was wondering
if someone can point me in the right direction. I'm running a FreeBSD
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit
a ha, you can't do this because Alright, let me see why rtld
on 6.1-amd64 is picking up /usr/lib32 stuff for a native 64-bit binary
via debugging techniques. This seems very very wrong to me. I mean if
/usr/lib is in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH and it comes before /usr/lib the
/usr/lib32 *should
Alright, well I found some weirdness:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# LD_DEBUG=1 ls
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is initialized, base address = 0x800506000
RTLD dynamic = 0x80062ad78
RTLD pltgot = 0x0
processing main program's
on 6.1-amd64 is picking up /usr/lib32 stuff for a native 64-bit binary
via debugging techniques. This seems very very wrong to me. I mean if
/usr/lib is in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH and it comes before /usr/lib the
/usr/lib32 *should* be innocuous, right?
Feel free to use that last statement on my
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:48:47 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, comments most appreciated. Damn, I was looking for someone to
go a ha, you can't do this because Alright, let me see why rtld
on 6.1-amd64 is picking up /usr/lib32 stuff for a native 64-bit binary
via
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:31:40 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I figured that out on my own but my question still exists, why
isn't /usr/lib similar in format to /usr/lib32 though with respect to
major numbers? Actually now that I re-read your paragraph I suppose
this isn't
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Alright, well I found some weirdness:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# LD_DEBUG=1 ls
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is initialized, base address = 0x800506000
RTLD dynamic = 0x80062ad78
is likely caused by the fact that there is
no /lib32, only /usr/lib32. So if 64-bit library lives in /lib,
your LD_LIBRARY_PATH will cause loader to find its 32-bit
equivalent in /usr/lib32 first.
Try LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64 for better
results.
Yes I
make in /mnt...
ELF interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found
Abort trap
=== Chrooted make in /mnt failed
=== Cleaning up...
I can directly execute /mnt/bin/sh or any program in /mnt without problems.
As expected, file gives me :
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 20:44:02 Olivier Smedts wrote:
So far I've got a working FreeBSD (kernel+world) in a 512MB image I can
dump on a CompactFlash card :
# cd /usr/src
# make buildworld TARGET=i386
# make buildkernel TARGET=i386
# mount /dev/md0a /mnt
(md0 is a 512MB file backed
chroot /mnt /etc/rc.d/ldconfig start
If that don't work:
/sbin/ldconfig -32 -s -f /mnt/var/run/ld-elf.so.hints /mnt/lib \
/mnt/usr/lib
Does that work / change the error or no change at all?
--
lost of 32-bit programs won't work, like those assuming some kernel data
is some format,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:39PM +0200, Mel wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 20:44:02 Olivier Smedts wrote:
So far I've got a working FreeBSD (kernel+world) in a 512MB image I can
dump on a CompactFlash card :
# cd /usr/src
# make buildworld TARGET=i386
# make buildkernel
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 21:57:22 Olivier Smedts wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:39PM +0200, Mel wrote:
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 20:44:02 Olivier Smedts wrote:
So far I've got a working FreeBSD (kernel+world) in a 512MB image I can
dump on a CompactFlash card :
# cd
interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found
Abort trap
#
No luck with the symlink hack or a jail :
Configuring jails:.
Starting jails:ELF interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found
cannot start jail fanless:
Abort trap
.
I'll try to boot directly in the 32-bit world with my 64-bit kernel.
I think
are upgraded which
still have 32-bit dependancies on the system?
This is a pretty common question, did you try searching the archives or
google for the answer?
Also, AFAIK upgrading to a 64 bit system allows access to additional
registers on the CPU, leading to a performance increase. The system
?
This is a pretty common question, did you try searching the archives
or google for the answer?
Yes, I did, and was quite surprised when I didn't find a clear answer :)
Also, AFAIK upgrading to a 64 bit system allows access to
additional registers on the CPU, leading to a performance increase.
The system
Andrew Berry wrote:
On 18-Sep-08, at 2:37 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Andrew Berry wrote:
Can I simply rebuild the world (or use freebsd-update), and
portupgrade everything to rebuild for amd64? Or, will things break as
libraries are upgraded which still have 32-bit dependancies on the
system?
still have 32-bit dependancies on the
system?
Also, AFAIK upgrading to a 64 bit system allows access to additional
registers on the CPU, leading to a performance increase. The system
will only have 1.5 gigs of RAM, so that's not an issue, but are there
any benchmarks out there comparing
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:48:24PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
AFAIK, it is not as much a question of ports being broken, but there are
some ports that have 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386' set, e.g. because they are
binary-only ports (e.g. flash plugin, nvidia driver) or because they
contain
you may just copy binaries onto amd64 system and they will work in 32-bit
mode.
As long as you also copy the 32-bit libraries that they need!
binaries means both.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work
In response to FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would
Em Sex, 2008-08-29 às 10:57 -0400, Bill Moran escreveu:
In response to FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken on AMD64. I would think if they worked on other
64-bit processors they'd work on AMD64. Were the ports that are
broken on AMD64 also broken
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:44:10AM -0400, FreeBSD Questions wrote:
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even if Alpha is no longer a Tier 1
architecture. I'm surprised to hear so many of you say that certain
ports are broken
Roland Smith writes:
To see which ports are restricted to certain architectures, try the
following command:
find /usr/ports -type f -name Makefile -exec grep -H ONLY_FOR_ARCH {} \;|less
This returned 643 entries, of which 29 listed a reason.
Six of those use assembler
AFAIK, it is not as much a question of ports being broken, but there are
some ports that have 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386' set, e.g. because they are
binary-only ports (e.g. flash plugin, nvidia driver) or because they
contain i386 assembly code or because the code contains assumptions that
are true on
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM, sergio lenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Em Sex, 2008-08-29 às 10:57 -0400, Bill Moran escreveu:
In response to FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FreeBSD has supported 64-bit architectures for a while now... Alpha
and UltraSPARC come to mind--even
Hello all,
Simple question - am I able to run 64-bit linux binaries using the ABI
emulation under FreeBSD 7.0 amd64? In the NOTES for amd64 kernel
configuration the COMPAT_LINUX option is commented out, but I don't
understand the explanation at the top of the section:
#XXX keep these here
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
Hello all,
Simple question - am I able to run 64-bit linux binaries using the ABI
emulation under FreeBSD 7.0 amd64? In the NOTES for amd64 kernel
configuration the COMPAT_LINUX option is commented out, but I don't
understand the explanation at the top of the section
If you are looking for batch processing, octave may be an option. The
objective was to be as compatible with Matlab as possible. There
wasn't any gui available when I last looked at this program.
As a side note, I found the following from the Matlab site hilarious :
FreeBSD distributions of
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
Hello all,
Simple question - am I able to run 64-bit linux binaries using the ABI
emulation under FreeBSD 7.0 amd64? In the NOTES for amd64 kernel
configuration the COMPAT_LINUX option is commented
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Sean Cavanaugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:47:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: 64-bit Linux Binary Compatibility (for Matlab)
Apparently Matlab tries to allocate a continuous chunk of memory
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Sean Cavanaugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:47:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: 64-bit Linux Binary Compatibility (for Matlab)
Apparently Matlab tries to allocate a continuous
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:47:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Apparently Matlab tries to allocate a continuous chunk of memory, and
we needed to upgrade to 64-bit hardware to give it access to more than
1GB of memory, which is about the most that it was able
Mark Tinguely wrote:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:47:45 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Apparently Matlab tries to allocate a continuous chunk of memory, and
we needed to upgrade to 64-bit hardware to give it access to more than
1GB of memory, which is about the most
On Thursday 07 August 2008, David Gurvich wrote:
If you are looking for batch processing, octave may be an option. The
objective was to be as compatible with Matlab as possible. There
wasn't any gui available when I last looked at this program.
There's math/koctave, which is a GUI for some
I'm full of questions, I know... And I haven't been googling well lately
but there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and you're
willing to share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit
Ryan Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm full of questions, I know... And I haven't been googling well lately
but there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and you're
willing to share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu
Ryan Coleman wrote:
I'm full of questions, I know... And I haven't been googling well lately
but there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and you're
willing to share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Ryan Coleman wrote:
I'm full of questions, I know... And I haven't been googling well
lately but there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and
you're willing to share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a
64-bit cpu
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Ryan Coleman wrote:
I'm full of questions, I know... And I haven't been googling well lately but
there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and you're willing to
share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit cpu
which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit? Might this have
anything to do with the crashes? Is there a stable 64-bit version of fBSD
I should install? Will it upgrade the 32-bit or should I go from scratch?
6.3 supports 64-bit amd64-compatible CPUs
haven't been googling well lately
but there seem to be a lot of you with a lot of knowledge and you're
willing to share (as am I).
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit? Might this have
anything to do
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:02:25 -0500
Ryan Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks everyone!
I'm going to do a fresh install to a new drive that I am picking up
in an hour or so from a local retailer.
If this is a server than you almost certainly should go with the 64 bit
version. If it's
) is a
64-bit cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit? Might
this have anything to do with the crashes? Is there a stable 64-bit
version of fBSD I should install? Will it upgrade the 32-bit or
should I go from scratch?
6.3 supports 64-bit amd64-compatible CPUs, and stability
understand) is a
64-bit cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit? Might this
have anything to do with the crashes?
you should run 64-bit version on 64-bit machine for performance
This is workload-dependent. Some workloads run more slowly on a 64-bit
CPU, others faster.
Kris
, but
32
you should run 64-bit version on 64-bit machine for performance
This is workload-dependent. Some workloads run more slowly on a 64-bit CPU,
others faster.
could you please give an example of slower running FreeBSD/amd64 thing
than FreeBSD/i386?
there are more memory usage sometimes
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
you should run 64-bit version on 64-bit machine for performance
This is workload-dependent. Some workloads run more slowly on a
64-bit CPU, others faster.
could you please give an example of slower running FreeBSD/amd64 thing
than FreeBSD/i386?
there are more
there are more memory usage sometimes, that's why i use 32-bit squid binary
on 64-bit systems
Precisely that. If your application relies on memory I/O, it may run slower
because data is typically bigger so takes longer to copy. Some java
applications can fall into this category, for example
Ryan Coleman wrote:
This machine is running a D2C E4600 which (as I understand) is a 64-bit
cpu, but I'm running fBSD 6.3 which is *not* 64-bit? Might this have
All AMD Intel x86 processors made in the last several years have the
traditional x86 32 bit instruction set, as well as AMD's 64
101 - 200 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
