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