From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 16:50:11 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 B9CA616A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:50:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C9443D39 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:50:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from EM1897@aol.com) Received: from EM1897@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id n.1c6.25167aa0 (16110) for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d51 (mblk-d51.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.235]) by air-id12.mx.aol.com (v104.18) with ESMTP id MAILINID122-3eee4242efb93de; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:50:01 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:50:01 -0500 Message-Id: <8C6FEA8A7F7983E-C1C-2FB16@mblk-d51.sysops.aol.com> From: em1897@aol.com References: <20050324162136.40902.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Received: from 24.47.116.25 by mblk-d51.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.235) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:50:01 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: <20050324162136.40902.qmail@web90210.mail.scd.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.0.0.11984 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.235 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 16:50:11 -0000 I think the point of a list is so that someone can say "oh yes, I had problems with the em driver in amd64 also; try card X." But instead you get a lot of people with no real idea trying to explain away the problem, as if there is no chance that the amd64 implementant just plain sucks wind. If someone who actually has an amd64 build could post some usage/load numbers, or someone who did some testing with various hardware, that might be useful. So far what we have is like a bunch of Mothers trying to defend their children without having any viable answers or evidence than amd64 is any good at all. Only a people who say nonsensical things like "my opteron blows away any P4", like a kid bragging about his mustang or something. The em driver has a standard hold-off of 8000 ints/second, so thats not likely the problem. Its likely to be the same in both i386 and amd64, so its a control.   So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use netperf too?   I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?    I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright.   Check this out:  http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html  http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice    Inparticular:  http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html  http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html  _______________________________________________  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"