Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:21:55 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: stevefranks@ieee.org Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!? Message-ID: <44iqr9rfz0.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <539c60b90810301129x58a6e5des56c062ecbb262663@mail.gmail.com> (Steve Franks's message of "Thu\, 30 Oct 2008 11\:29\:55 -0700") References: <539c60b90810301128j2493c4c1wc9519a6fef834490@mail.gmail.com> <539c60b90810301129x58a6e5des56c062ecbb262663@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Steve Franks" <stevefranks@ieee.org> writes: > Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution... > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <stevefranks@ieee.org> wrote: >> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in >> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few >> months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement >> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & >> settings set is pretty identical also... >> >> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always >> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is >> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). >> >> Steve >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44iqr9rfz0.fsf>