From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 17 05:46:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AA916A42B for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:46:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mail.localelinks.com (web.localelinks.com [64.39.75.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9650243D58 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:46:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from draco.over-yonder.net (adsl-072-148-013-213.sip.jan.bellsouth.net [72.148.13.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.localelinks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862C94A; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:46:46 -0600 (CST) Received: by draco.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id B3A8761C38; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:46:45 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:46:45 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Peter Wemm Message-ID: <20060317054645.GF2473@over-yonder.net> References: <200603140740.38388.joao@matik.com.br> <20060315144558.118c584b.kgunders@teamcool.net> <200603160741.05493.joao@matik.com.br> <200603160925.00090.peter@wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603160925.00090.peter@wemm.org> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11-fullermd.2 Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:46:48 -0000 On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:24:59AM -0800 I heard the voice of Peter Wemm, and lo! it spake thus: > > As a result, I will not use a machine without ECC. The memory > controller on all Athlon64 and Opteron cpus works in ECC mode, it > isn't a motherboard issue (unless they forget to wire up bits 65 > through 72, or forget to put the bios options in). I've heard statements, though, that there ARE a non-trivial number of motherboards that [fail to] do those sort of things (it probably saves almost a deci-penny a board, after all). Me, I just stick with ECC 'cuz I like my data. I wonder, though, if anybody has run across specific makes of boards that get in the way of running ECC; would be nice to mention it on the motherboards page if so. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.