From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 2 14:36:05 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864DA270; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:36:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:30f:e0::5059:ee8a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0427DE; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (mx1.hvnu.psconsult.nl [46.44.189.154]) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r32EZvX5031751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:36:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: (from paul@localhost) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id r32DMR8s095574; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:22:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) X-Authentication-Warning: mx1.psconsult.nl: paul set sender to freebsd@psconsult.nl using -f Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:22:27 +0200 From: Paul Schenkeveld To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture Message-ID: <20130402132227.GA73670@psconsult.nl> References: <944760435.20130401210118@serebryakov.spb.ru> <8638v9e22j.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20130402102220.GA28545@eris.bzerk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130402102220.GA28545@eris.bzerk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:36:05 -0000 On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:22:20AM +0000, Ruben de Groot wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:10:56AM -0700, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk typed: > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > > > > > Wojciech Puchar writes: > > > > Lev Serebryakov writes: > > > > > It is not exact so. Some Atoms on some motherboards with some > > > > > firmwares are 64-bit CPU. > > > > don't know of any now in shops that are not > > > > > > http://soekris.com/products/net5501.html > > > http://soekris.com/products/net6501.html > > > > > > DES > > > -- > > > Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav - des@des.no > > > > > > > > > I am NOT able to understand the merit of these products with respect to > > their features and PRICES . > > They are extremely stable and robust. > > > It is possible to assemble much more cheaper full featured PC like systems > > ( DDR3 memory , 64-bit capable processors , with a disadvantage about power > > requirements ) . > > You can also get much bigger portions at MacDonald than what you get in a > five star restaurant. Soekris boards are perhaps not five star boards but at least they have four :) Although the thread started as an april fools day prank, it's getting serious now about the value of having i386 next to amd64. I'm using quite a number of net4501/net4801/net5501/net6501 in many places just because I haven't found anything that can to the same job with the same reliability at the same low power diet for a reasonable price. For people on a tight budget with lower reliability expectations there are the PC-engines Alix boards. Except for the net6501, none of these can run amd64. Even though the net6501 can run amd64, I prefer running i386 on them (and other boards where I do not need >= 4GB of RAM or the large address space) instead of amd64 just because the system image is so much smaller, requiring less storage on your filesystem (often a small flash device), less time to upload changes over the Internet when doing remote upgrades and they are more efficient with virtual memory. Running amd64 when not really needed is just a waste of resources. There have been discussions in the past whether is would make sense to run a 32-bit userland on top of a amd64 kernel sou you can have >4GB of RAM but keep your userland relatively small. There are only few applications that really benefit from 64 bit address space, others could well be 32 bit apps. Just some random numbers to illustrate my point: i386$ size /bin/sh /bin/ls /usr/bin/find /usr/bin/cc text data bss dec hex filename 111533 1048 7460 120041 1d4e9 /bin/sh 22808 572 396 23776 5ce0 /bin/ls 33098 760 3392 37250 9182 /usr/bin/find 314841 9376 18204 342421 53995 /usr/bin/cc amd64$ size /bin/sh /bin/ls /usr/bin/find /usr/bin/cc text data bss dec hex filename 129371 1992 10272 141635 22943 /bin/sh 26255 1144 536 27935 6d1f /bin/ls 43464 1352 4680 49496 c158 /usr/bin/find 383330 15296 58664 457290 6fa4a /usr/bin/cc Kind regards, Paul Schenkeveld