From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 15 15:41:50 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEE416A46C for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8996213C4E1 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:41:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D411A4D80; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:23:49 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:19:11 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <001d01c74a27$25afd9d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <013c01c74a95$ca217000$0c00a8c0@Artem> <200702072028.42216.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200702072028.42216.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711150919.12023.jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Boris Samorodov , Artem Kuchin Subject: Re: Filesystem corruption and bad perfomance with SRCS16 and PAE ( raid 5 2TB) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:41:50 -0000 On Wednesday 07 February 2007 04:58:17 am Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 19:23, Artem Kuchin wrote: > > FreeBSD/amd64 is a very young platform on FreeBSD. While the core FreeBSD > > kernel and base system components are generally fairly robust, there are > > likely to still be rough edges, particularly with third party packages." > > > > scares me. Do you really think it is better than PAE? > > PAE is quite young as well, I think it was committed to the tree around March > 2003. The earliest AMD64 commit I could find was May 2003 although repo > copying makes it confusing.. > > I think you'll find the list of drivers incompatible with PAE to be much > longer with amd64. Err, amd64 and PAE are the same problem for drivers (dealing with 64-bit physical addresses for DMA which can require bounce buffering if your hardware only supports 32-bit physical addresses). The fix is to use the bus_dma abstraction in the driver instead of directly using vtophys() and a driver needs that fix for both PAE and amd64. amr(4) should work fine with both PAE and amd64 with > 4GB of RAM. -- John Baldwin