Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:02:04 +0100 From: Bill Squire <billsf@curacao.n2it.nl> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 support in 5.x versions Message-ID: <20040113070204.GA764@curacao.n2it.nl> In-Reply-To: <btuv0n$2hb$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0401071115150.8910-100000@odin.cs.kun.nl> <btnjba$uao$1@sea.gmane.org> <17426.6989030459$1073697945@news.gmane.org> <btuv0n$2hb$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello,
This is my first post to this list as an actual member of the list. I
purchased system at a bi-monthly tradefair here in Amsterdam last summer.
I've got several large SCSI disks spinning and have since purchased an
ordinary ATA-133 IDE and a SATA drive. Yes, the IDE's work but like any
serious Unix system you need the top line SCSI drives. (SATA is very
promising with speed, but like IDE in general, it can result in a surprise
freeze with allot of bus activity.) So use SCSI, and certainly if you want
to run Linux! I could go on about the machine, but its a 'single' and using
what I consider reasonable benchmarks (intense mathematical calculation,
build world and Gimp, etc.) At 2200MHz, in 64-bit mode and 1G of 400MHz
memory, I get the equivalent performance of a P4-5400MHz if such a chip
existed. Now I want a dual or bigger Opteron. The speed allows for some
heavy hacking and fine grain tuning.
Yes, when I put it together, I tried FreeBSD 5.0 and upgraded to 5.1-CURRENT
which was not 'released yet'. It worked, but I got the feeling it was going
to be like the Alpha ev56/533MHz monster I picked up years ago while still
technically a prototype. (Really great machine and has ran 24/7 for over
six years using probably every OS it could run except WindowsNT.) Unlike
the amd64, this was a very slow development and my skills weren't what they
are today.
Unlike Alpha where Linux was right there, Linux has been somewhat of a
disappointment. It seems like you simply can NOT have ANY IDE and get Linux
to work. Yes, I check Gentoo, RedHat, Mandrake and Suse as new distros come
out but the majority still simply 'panic' when you try to boot the CD. All
(AFAIK) panic if there is ANYTHING on the IDE busses at all! I've gone the
bootstrap route but that is allot of work and tests my otherwise patient
outlook on life. Linprocfs can be hacked and to work (mostly) on FreeBSD-
amd64. I did manage to _compile_ a Linux kernel that way. It is quite bro-
ken, but better than the 'installer kernels' in the distros. This Linux,
while I think its the greatest thing for the i386, needs allot of work on
the amd64 hardware platform.
So back to FreeBSD.
At this time I'm quite convinced FreeBSD is ahead with this machine. My only
complaint is the whole system can go through rapid swings. It was possible
upto a month or so ago to have a i386 compat collection in /usr/compat/ia32
symlinked to /compat It did work as i386 apps used /compat/ia32/ld-elf.so.1
(this is a 32bit rtld) but it was by no means perfect and i386 applications,
particularly Mozilla, would 'white out' and freeze the entire system. There
were some other nasty interactions and some 64-bit programs would not run
after a successful compile but would on a pure 64-bit system.
Is the present strategy of using /libexec/ld-elf-32.so.1 planned to remain?
If so, its a matter of hacking a 32-bit rtld (ld-elf-32.so.1) to re-direct
to the /compat/ia32 compatibility area. When the amd64 sees i386 instructions
(read: "pentium-pro", complete with a fake serial number) it executes them!
Still, its better to run true64, but indeed, 32bit binaries in Linux may be
all that is on offer for many commercial applications, for most developers.
Presumably i386 compatibility is of some use. Remember it may be more ecco-
nomical to run 32bit binaries on i386 machines and optionally network them
with your amd64? Personally, I think its more of a show-off stunt than any-
thing, but computer games are not part of my world. Game developers can
quickly adapt to 64bits and infact it is urgent that 'gaming development
environments' for amd64 be put out there.
Reading the recent archives, it does seem that backward compatibility is
desired. My question are simple: Will the FreeBSD amd64 kernel and systems
handle 32bit programs in a similar manner from now on or will I get something
working again and find my whole project wrecked soon after? Would reverse-
engineering binaries (and supplying the tools to do it) be more productive?
Atleast for us in Europe those lines against this activity EULA's are NULL
and VOID, particularly if you have attempted to point out that 'interoper-
ability is the law' to anti-open-source firms.
BillSF
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0500, david wrote:
> Jem Matzan wrote:
> >On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 20:08, david wrote:
> >
> >
> >Let me know if you get anything working in terms of GNU/Linux,
> >specifically community distros...
> >
>
> I will. However, as this will mainly be a server, my particular concerns
> are with the linux compatibility. This is an absolute must for this
> machine and from my understanding, this is completely broke in freebsd
> with and amd64 running in 64bit. So, if this doesn't work(i will test)
> then I will go with SUSE which I have talked to several people who run
> it in 64bit and say it works fine. Regardless, I will know something in
> a week or so.
>
> David
This looks like an interesting thread. At the higher end of the Internet
connectivity spectrum this *BSD system is a very good server in any form.
At my co-location provider, (I can say 'mine' as i own a comfortable per-
centage as an 'active participant.) I maintain a FreeBSD-CURRENT server
on an athlon-xp1800+ (1533MHz) with reasonable results. At 100Mbit/s it
can take quite a beating, especially since there are many hosted sites,
'jails', databases and just about anything 30+ people want. On my desk
is a Gentoo system and an old Mac that will soon be taken offline and used
for secure matters. My coworkers use RedHat and some Windows2000 server
is a workstation we all occasionally use.
There are two real 'show stoppers' for the Unix market: IDE and Adaptec
SCSI host adapters. On OpenBSD (our primary OS) IDE works better and the
shamed host adapter is worse. Linux is much the same story. The non-Unix
OS that makes up a small fraction of the server market is a nightmare,
but small companies pay a premium for Win2k or the 'server2003' stuff.
I'll see it in the archive soon, but why is so important to have Linux?
In not too long, I'm going to put my first amd64 in a rack and connect it
to 1Gbit/s. Without a GUI, it is exceedingly stable with FreeBSD. To be
honest, I've not had the need to try DHCP. I will try it out of curiosity.
If you need that stuff, PC's (and Cisco) should be just fine.
Finally, to somewhat recap, a good server has SCSI drives, a Symbios (sym)
host adapter and Intel 'eepro100' (fxp) network cards. I have SysKonnect
(sk) for Gigabit ether. The jury's out on the sk's.
B.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040113070204.GA764>