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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
) 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
]:
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
___
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
