From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 2 18:11:42 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3BE9CB; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:11:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F496BD6; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:11:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-67-180-208-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.208.218]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 116851A3CD6; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <515B1F4C.9030001@mu.org> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:11:24 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schenkeveld Subject: Re: considering i386 as a tier 1 architecture References: <944760435.20130401210118@serebryakov.spb.ru> <8638v9e22j.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20130402102220.GA28545@eris.bzerk.org> <20130402132227.GA73670@psconsult.nl> In-Reply-To: <20130402132227.GA73670@psconsult.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Hackers , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org 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 18:11:42 -0000 As far I can tell it's now April 2nd in all time zones. Can we now end this thread? thank you, -Alfred On 4/2/13 6:22 AM, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >