From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb  7 17:17:40 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6045F16A4CE; Mon,  7 Feb 2005 17:17:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (duey.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.9])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2596F43D46; Mon,  7 Feb 2005 17:17:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FEF41FE27;
	Mon,  7 Feb 2005 11:17:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with LMTP id 35794-01-26; Mon,  7 Feb 2005 11:17:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id D9D131FE1E; Mon,  7 Feb 2005 11:17:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69991A904;
	Mon,  7 Feb 2005 11:17:34 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:17:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>
To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <42044B92.4040102@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20050207111200.G36249@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us>
References: <000001c50a3c$50f2eba0$6800000a@r3140ca>
	<20050204103708.21608.qmail@web26801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<2fd864e05020419434705bf70@mail.gmail.com>
	<42044B92.4040102@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at wolves.k12.mo.us
cc: amd64@freebsd.org
cc: questions@freebsd.org
cc: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com>
cc: Claus Guttesen <cguttesen@yahoo.dk>
cc: Nathan Vidican <nvidican@wmptl.com>
Subject: Re: Intel EMT64 Xeon vs AMD Opteron
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:17:40 -0000

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Scott Long wrote:

> With FreeBSD, it's a bit of a toss-up.  There is no strong affinity 
> set or enforced between process memory and where the process is 
> running. Having some notion of affinity (i.e. NUMA support) would be 
> a good thing.  Oh, and the 4+2 configurations are typically pretty 
> poor, regardless.

For non-NUMA-aware operating systems, you should turn on Node 
Interleaving for the memory system which will spread the memory 
accesses across all processors.  Hopefully all multi-processor Opteron 
system BIOSes will give you this option, my Tyan S2885 does.

-- 
  Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us
  FreeBSD: The fastest, most open, and most stable OS on the planet
  - Available for IA32, IA64, AMD64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures
  - PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development
  - http://www.freebsd.org

Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon?