Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:19:11 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, Artem Kuchin <matrix@itlegion.ru> Subject: Re: Filesystem corruption and bad perfomance with SRCS16 and PAE ( raid 5 2TB) Message-ID: <200711150919.12023.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200702072028.42216.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <001d01c74a27$25afd9d0$0c00a8c0@Artem> <013c01c74a95$ca217000$0c00a8c0@Artem> <200702072028.42216.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 04:58:17 am Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 19:23, Artem Kuchin wrote: > > FreeBSD/amd64 is a very young platform on FreeBSD. While the core FreeBSD > > kernel and base system components are generally fairly robust, there are > > likely to still be rough edges, particularly with third party packages." > > > > scares me. Do you really think it is better than PAE? > > PAE is quite young as well, I think it was committed to the tree around March > 2003. The earliest AMD64 commit I could find was May 2003 although repo > copying makes it confusing.. > > I think you'll find the list of drivers incompatible with PAE to be much > longer with amd64. Err, amd64 and PAE are the same problem for drivers (dealing with 64-bit physical addresses for DMA which can require bounce buffering if your hardware only supports 32-bit physical addresses). The fix is to use the bus_dma abstraction in the driver instead of directly using vtophys() and a driver needs that fix for both PAE and amd64. amr(4) should work fine with both PAE and amd64 with > 4GB of RAM. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200711150919.12023.jhb>