From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May  2 05:17:15 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4907316A4CE; Mon,  2 May 2005 05:17:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from coe.ufrj.br (roma.coe.ufrj.br [146.164.53.65])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 91EB643D41; Mon,  2 May 2005 05:17:14 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jonny@jonny.eng.br)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by coe.ufrj.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E8017017;
	Mon,  2 May 2005 02:17:10 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from coe.ufrj.br ([146.164.53.65])
 by localhost (roma.coe.ufrj.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 09909-08; Mon,  2 May 2005 02:17:07 -0300 (BRT)
Received: from [200.164.156.123] (unknown [200.164.156.123])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by coe.ufrj.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F4517015;
	Mon,  2 May 2005 02:17:06 -0300 (BRT)
Message-ID: <4275B7CA.9040701@jonny.eng.br>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 02:16:58 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= <jonny@jonny.eng.br>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0+ (Windows/20050329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050501094429.06974910@64.7.153.2>
	<20050502044655.E78953@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050502044655.E78953@fledge.watson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at coe.ufrj.br
cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Subject: Re: 64bit CPUs
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 05:17:15 -0000

Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> A somewhat obvious question to some perhaps, but what server=20
>> application mix on FreeBSD today sees an improvement using 64bit CPUs =

>> ?  In my ISP centric world, my big apps are BIND, IMAP/POP3, httpd via=
=20
>> apache, SMTP, AV and SPAM scanning, and firewalls/routing.  Apart from=
=20
>> larger RAM, why would these benefit from the 64bit world ?  Or would=20
>> they ?
>=20
> RAM/address space is the big reason.  In fact, applications compiled fo=
r=20
> 64-bits may well run slower than 32-bit ones running on the 64-bit=20
> kernel. Note that systems like Solaris default build many programs as=20
> 32-bit, since there's no benefit to running ls(1) with a 64-bit address=
=20
> space.

     Should I understand from this that, in the long term, FreeBSD will=20
take the same path as Solaris, and have a dual (32bit/64bit) userland on =

amd64 arch?


                                         Jonny

--=20
Jo=E3o Carlos Mendes Lu=EDs - Networking Engineer - jonny@jonny.eng.br