From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 15 20:54:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C388F16A420 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:54:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D1943D88 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:54:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from anb (anb.matik.com.br [200.152.83.34]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k2FKsl9D083781; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:54:47 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR To: Kris Kennaway Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:54:27 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200603140740.38388.joao@matik.com.br> <200603151728.35620.joao@matik.com.br> <20060315203922.GA87806@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060315203922.GA87806@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603151754.27250.joao@matik.com.br> X-Filter-Version: 1.11a (msrv.matik.com.br) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88, clamav-milter version 0.87 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:54:50 -0000 On Wednesday 15 March 2006 17:39, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Yes, but the problem is that you didn't stop and file a bug report > when you learned of the problems (and then turn off the broken > option), but instead wrote an email in which you made the broad claim > that FreeBSD's SMP support was unstable. > whats that now? absolutly not true read the thread again and show me where I said that but to help you out: I= =20 said that I (I!) have problems with X2 processor with very specific memory= =20 amount installed on certain hardware when SMP is enabled don't turn my words around > > > > well, that was my first thought too but makes no sense if the same > > happens on several different brands, > > Why not? It is well-documented that many motherboards need BIOS > updates to work correctly with dual-core CPUs. > you are more clever than that aren't you? Or do you try to get clever with = me? means: makes no sense that the bios is broken on all MBs I tried overall you cut the important thing where I said that I did tried other bio= s=20 versions and what you say here has nothing to do with all of this because the bios=20 updates you're talking about are necessary on certain MBs in order to=20 recognize the X2 - so we are beyond this point ... Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br