Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:07:55 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: Chris Maness <chris@chrismaness.com> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Xeon Quad Core (Was: Server Freezing Solid) Message-ID: <20081124200755.GA3659@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <492B0275.6000300@chrismaness.com> References: <b2e0a4330811110642k688c2c9aq9fbb9832f5382c53@mail.gmail.com> <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCCEPNCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <20081112100640.GA21560@icarus.home.lan> <492AF564.5050605@chrismaness.com> <20081124200044.A1528@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <492B0275.6000300@chrismaness.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:37:25AM -0800, Chris Maness wrote: > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> Since a Xeon Quad Core is a 64bit processor, would it work ok with > >> FreeBSD? Or would the adm64 release be better for that chip? > > > > don't be suggested by "amd" in port name. it's for AMD64-compatible > > processor, for example your xeon > Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the > regular i386 release. I would prefer to keep it that way if migration > to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch You'll have to remove and re-install all ports to make them 64-bits as well. > (there is > probably an easier way to convert an i386 release to a amd64 release). Not really. You could do a cross-build to another partition, but you'd have to have one available. > Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just > fine on a quad core chip. It should. > Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386 > build on a Xeon Quad Core? It will depend on your workload. If your machines were strapped fo address space on i386, switching to amd64 (with enough RAM) will help. In "long" (64-bit) mode, amd64 compatible CPUs have more registers available, so that will speed up things. On the other hand, pointers and longs are 64-bit numbers instead of 32-bit, which will make the code somewhat larger. Run some benchmarks that are relevant for you on i386 and re-run them after you've switched to amd64 to know for sure. I've been running amd64 since 5.4 on both Athlon64 and recently Core 2 Quad without problems. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkkrCZsACgkQEnfvsMMhpyXaIwCgilg0iNjU9faBolMC48HjRNbu vR0An2cP6heGCZs5HqiVvP/RM4o25Rqz =62le -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081124200755.GA3659>