From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 22:15:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5F5106564A for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:15:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: from gwyn.kn-bremen.de (gwyn.kn-bremen.de [212.63.36.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443B18FC17 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:15:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: by gwyn.kn-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id EE01F191BCB; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:47:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from saturn.kn-bremen.de (noident@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAILkFgi034515; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:46:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: (from nox@localhost) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.14.2/8.13.6/Submit) id mAILkEBC034514; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:46:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:46:14 +0100 (CET) From: Juergen Lock Message-Id: <200811182146.mAILkEBC034514@saturn.kn-bremen.de> To: stevefranks@ieee.org X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.questions In-Reply-To: <539c60b90810301129x58a6e5des56c062ecbb262663@mail.gmail.com> References: <539c60b90810301128j2493c4c1wc9519a6fef834490@mail.gmail.com> Organization: home Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!? 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:15:04 -0000 In article <539c60b90810301129x58a6e5des56c062ecbb262663@mail.gmail.com> you write: >Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... > >On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks wrote: >> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in >> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few >> months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement >> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & >> settings set is pretty identical also... >> >> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always >> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is >> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). >> >> Steve Hi! Are you sure kqemu is even used? (in the monitor do: info kqemu) Quoting ports/emulators/qemu/pkg-message: - also remember that on amd64 you need to run the amd64 (x86_64) system emulation if you want to use kqemu, i.e. run qemu-system-x86_64 instead of qemu (the latter only emulates a 32 bit system.) [...] Note however that this is no longer true with the qemu-devel port, so if you are using that also the 32 bit `qemu' can use kqemu. And finally, for anyone wanting to test out more recent qemu svn snapshots, you should check -emulation, I have just prepared another experimental qemu-devel port update: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2008-November/005526.html HTH, Juergen PS: No I'm still not on -questions, so please Cc me if you want to make sure I see followups. (I was just testing out accessing it via gmane and looked for recent posts about qemu...)