Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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

--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=20
> >> 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=20
> > processor, for example your xeon
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  I am currently running FreeBSD 7.0 the=20
> regular i386 release.  I would prefer to keep it that way if migration=20
> to the 64bit release would mean rebuilding from scratch=20

You'll have to remove and re-install all ports to make them 64-bits as well.

> (there is=20
> 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.
 =20
> Another poster seemed to indicate that the i386 release would run just=20
> fine on a quad core chip.

It should.

> Would there be a major performance gain with amd64 over that of the i386=
=20
> 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
--=20
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)

--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkrCZsACgkQEnfvsMMhpyXaIwCgilg0iNjU9faBolMC48HjRNbu
vR0An2cP6heGCZs5HqiVvP/RM4o25Rqz
=62le
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081124200755.GA3659>