From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 12 14:25:03 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 CE0AC16A41F for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F7543D6A for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z31so117322nzd for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:25:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AUetddEDwgsxzBg7LFYs8Py8Y8S3QaC++GAlQZnErkBkpAW3d9BMz7M3d3iyfCPfq5vsgp+zGBBijk2fx4yx371HWYhqKqoqWXHIYZYH3hZxj3IzA27jtTnb4XONRDgyudMxG4N1Q6RrIZXVzJZZYCpwqHuB8y0tSwwroavo3Jo= Received: by 10.36.22.10 with SMTP id 10mr969064nzv; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.20.34 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:24:59 +0400 From: "Andrew P." To: Nathan Vidican In-Reply-To: <434D1A10.1000701@wmptl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <434D1A10.1000701@wmptl.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 vs i386 on a Dual Opteron Box X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:03 -0000 On 10/12/05, Nathan Vidican wrote: > We've been encountering some difficulty between > OpenLDAP/nss/pam/FreeBSD/samba over the past few months and really since > inception. After countless recompiles of samba, working with samba and > openldap code, we've traced it to being an issue somwhere between > freebsd and openldap using threads, a clean compile of openldap without > using threads runs fine, but still seem to have inconsistency with nss > portions of it. > > The conscencus accross a few different threads on various mailing lists > seems to be to try running FreeBSD/i386 instead, therefore assuming > perhaps that there are some issues with threading/openldap/nss_ldap on > the AMD64/64-bit platform. We're currently running 5.3-RELEASE, I'm > going to attempt 5.4-RELEASE/amd64 first, if the issues still arises, > the next step would be to try 5.4-RELEASE/i386, and if the problem still > exists... then back to trying to debug the whole situation. > > So, given the above information, my question is this: > > Knowing FreeBSD i386 can be run on AMD64 hardware, is there any > disadvantage other than the obvious 64-bit support? We're using dual AMD > Opteron based machines with 2GB ECC registered memory, so memory > capacity shouldn't be an issue running 32bit, but how about smp support? > > > Also, if anyone might have another idea or option to go with towards > fixing the openldap/freebsd issue, that'd be even better still - but to > be honest I lack the skills, time, and hardware neccessary to accomplish > this on my own. I'm hoping that something between 5.3-RELEASE and > 5.4-RELEASE can resolv the issue, or at least to isolate it to > FreeBSD/OpenLDAP/Samba/nss_ldap/? as the cause. > > In short, i386 on AMD64 good, bad, why? > > -- > Nathan Vidican > nvidican@wmptl.com > Windsor Match Plate & Tool Ltd. > http://www.wmptl.com/ > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" > i386 is _exactly_ as good on amd64 as it is on i386. Still amd64 is even better. If you can afford to lose a couple of days more, try 6.0-RC1/amd64. It fixes many things, and we'll try and help you debug your setup from there. In his statements Scott Long almost makes an impression that 6.0-RELEASE will be more stable than 4.11 and 5.4.