From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 29 21:24:17 2005 Return-Path: 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 1BECD16A4CE for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:24:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.79]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25D6943D39 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:24:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.0.1) (mikej@69.193.222.195 with login) by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 21:24:14 -0000 Received: from 172.16.0.199 (SquirrelMail authenticated user mikej) by 172.16.0.1 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1730.172.16.0.199.1114809843.squirrel@172.16.0.1> In-Reply-To: <42F0A677951F8710C0546786@rambutan.pingpong.net> References: <42F0A677951F8710C0546786@rambutan.pingpong.net> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:24:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mike Jakubik" To: "Palle Girgensohn" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.1 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64 as nfs-server X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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, 29 Apr 2005 21:24:17 -0000 On Fri, April 29, 2005 4:00 pm, Palle Girgensohn said: >> I'm getting a couple of Dell 2850's with dual EMT64 cpu's @ 2.8 GHz to >> replace our very trusty PIII-nfs-servers. I am accustomed to the >> rock-solid stability of the i386-port of the 5.x-branch and will >> probably put i386 on them. But has anyone used the amd64 coupled with PE >> 2850's as nfs-servers? They have onboard em-interfaces. >> > > Hi, > > > I do use 2850 w/ amd64, and with dual CPU and hyper threading, it is not > stable, it crashes a lot. I'm debugging it, we'll see what turns up. 5.x is known to be unstable with 4 CPUs. I bet you would be ok if you disabled hyper threading. But hopefully your debugging will help to determine the real problem.