From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 15:18:37 2005 Return-Path: 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 2A5AF16A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:18:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com (imo-m20.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A74643D39 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:18:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from EM1897@aol.com) Received: from EM1897@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id o.f5.4dd5c5a3 (16098); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d19 (mblk-d19.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.203]) by air-id11.mx.aol.com (v104.18) with ESMTP id MAILINID112-3ee24242da3c1af; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:18:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:18:20 -0500 Message-Id: <8C6FE9BD8BB1AC2-B50-2DF29@mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com> From: em1897@aol.com References: <20050323163927.94815.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Received: from 24.47.116.25 by mblk-d19.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.203) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:18:19 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.0.0.11984 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linicks@gmail.com, hardcodeharry@yahoo.com X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.203 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:18:37 -0000 If you haven't used amd64 then why are you qualified to comment on the subject? If he's using the same settings for i386 and amd64, then the results should be balanced. I think the point here is that the same settings, which are probably the defaults, run a lot slower on amd64 than i386. And I don't see that you have any insight to provide. I hope FreeBSD hasn't become linux; in that it doesnt work out of the box and you have to selectively kludge it to show good results in any particular benchmark? Thats what made FreeBSD good historically. It was just good in general. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Pavlica To: Boris Spirialitious Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:05:59 -0700 Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre Hi Boris, I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet, but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum sustained disk write of 15Mb/s to 90Mb/s on a file server. That said, to help you get a better response to your question I would suggest trying these things: - Document and post your testing procedures and results. This will allow others to get a much clearer picture of what may be happening. As I'm sure you know support via e-mail is very difficult because there is so much information that is missing. - You may want to try the performance list if you don't get any answers from this list. - File a problem report so that the developers are aware of your situation. I don't think that they spend allot of time on this list. (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/index.html) I hope this helps! --Nick What optimizations have you done to this point? _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"