Professional Web Applications Themes

AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre - FreeBSD

--- Emanuel Strobl <net> wrote: [/ref] > traffic [/ref] > run [/ref] > tuning [/ref] > duplex/negotiation  > > > > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled[/ref] > stream > > Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with > em and 5.3. There are > tuning methods but they won't give the big kick. > > Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your > employment you'll see > tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy > nor can I confirm that for > amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if > this box isn't > ...

  1. #1

    Default AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre


    --- Emanuel Strobl <net> wrote: [/ref]
    > traffic [/ref]
    > run [/ref]
    > tuning [/ref]
    > duplex/negotiation 
    > >
    > > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled[/ref]
    > stream
    >
    > Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with
    > em and 5.3. There are
    > tuning methods but they won't give the big kick.
    >
    > Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your
    > employment you'll see
    > tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy
    > nor can I confirm that for
    > amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if
    > this box isn't
    > productive yet, which it isn't if I understood
    > correctly.[/ref]

    I am running 5.4-Pre now. Its the same. Everyone
    always say try new version, but it always the same.

    i compare em to em, only difference is amd64 vs
    i386. So amd64 O/S is this much slower than i386?
    So why anyone use? Is like nobody know what is
    going on with this OS. Before, people tell me
    Opteron on i386 no good. But now that I test,
    its much better than amd64. Why is there always
    excuse with FreeBSD 5? Always try next version.
    Always same slow result?

    Boris



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Make Yahoo! your home page
    http://www./r/hs
    Boris Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    The answer, Boris, is that the "team" has no idea what
    they're doing. Check out some of the threads on
    performance testing. They tune little pieces here
    and there, and break 10 other things in the process.
    Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second
    was "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps
    that means you get an interrupt for every
    packet.

    They're playing pin the tail on the donkey.


    : [/ref]
    > traffic [/ref]
    > run [/ref]
    > tuning [/ref]
    > duplex/negotiation 
    > >
    > > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled[/ref]
    > stream
    >
    > Unfortunately that's a not so uncommon result with
    > em and 5.3. There are
    > tuning methods but they won't give the big kick.
    >
    > Like mentioned, try 5.4 (BETA1), depending on your
    > employment you'll see
    > tremendous improvement, I don't have values handy
    > nor can I confirm that for
    > amd64, but you really wnat to try out, especially if
    > this box isn't
    > productive yet, which it isn't if I understood
    > correctly.[/ref]

    I am running 5.4-Pre now. Its the same. Everyone
    always say try new version, but it always the same.

    i compare em to em, only difference is amd64 vs
    i386. So amd64 O/S is this much slower than i386?
    So why anyone use? Is like nobody know what is
    going on with this OS. Before, people tell me
    Opteron on i386 no good. But now that I test,
    its much better than amd64. Why is there always
    excuse with FreeBSD 5? Always try next version.
    Always same slow result?

    Boris



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Make Yahoo! your home page
    http://www./r/hs
    _______________________________________________
    org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    "org"


    em1897@aol.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    com wrote:
     
    You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was
    unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion
    you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they
    ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp
    based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its
    own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to
    leave it alone.

    He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system
    load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on
    a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is
    just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his
    system or settings.

    Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single
    machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third
    machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but
    an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The
    least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better.
    Did he tell you if he had polling on?

    So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I
    couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that
    would be wrong.
    jason Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

     
    You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was
    unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion
    you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they
    ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp
    based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its
    own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to
    leave it alone.
    He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system
    load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on
    a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is
    just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his
    system or settings.
    Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a single
    machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a third
    machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says i386, but
    an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work around. The
    least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would be better.
    Did he tell you if he had polling on?

    So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I
    couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that
    would be wrong. _______________________________________________

    --------- Previous Message

    No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS
    parameter for the em
    driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead.
    Instead of minimizing the load,
    they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is
    not how you tune
    performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get 695Kb/s
    with 60% load,
    which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so they
    were hitting the
    wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was
    just a stupid test in
    general.

    I'm not 100% sure of what he was saying, but I've seen the same thing.
    I take an i386 disk
    and pop on an amd64 disk with the same settings, except for the 3 or 4
    required differences,
    and the i386 machine has WAY less network load. So maybe your
    buildworld runs faster,
    but the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap, so
    you likely have a
    slower machine. I haven't seen any test that shows otherwise, just a
    bunch of swell
    guys swearing that one thing is faster than another.

    I understand that you don't want to hear the truth, so flame away. But
    its not going to make
    things any better.
    em1897@aol.com Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    Hi Boris,
    I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet,
    but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your
    frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x
    performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum
    sustained disk write of 15Mb/s to 90Mb/s on a file server. That said,
    to help you get a better response to your question I would suggest
    trying these things:

    - Doent and post your testing procedures and results. This will
    allow others to get a much clearer picture of what may be happening.
    As I'm sure you know support via e-mail is very difficult because
    there is so much information that is missing.

    - You may want to try the performance list if you don't get any
    answers from this list.

    - File a problem report so that the developers are aware of your
    situation. I don't think that they spend allot of time on this list.
    (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/index.html)

    I hope this helps!
    --Nick





    What optimizations have you done to this point?
    Nick Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    com wrote:
     
    >
    > You could understand what he was saying? I wanted to help but was
    > unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion
    > you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they
    > ere talking about. But on it would very a little, and with the fxp
    > based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its
    > own thing in hardware. So that setting was redundant, it was best to
    > leave it alone.
    > He also seemed to say the network bandwidth was constant, and system
    > load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If he was using GENERIC on
    > a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out a recompile. There is
    > just so much that could be wrong and he gives no information on his
    > system or settings.
    > Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a
    > single machine that he ran both versions on? The router, is that a
    > third machine that was an amd64 system, or something else? He says
    > i386, but an up to date 5.3 world doesn't support 386 with out a work
    > around. The least commom setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would
    > be better. Did he tell you if he had polling on?
    >
    > So I guess it is a good thing you were able to help him, because I
    > couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait you through out, well, that
    > would be wrong. _______________________________________________
    >
    > --------- Previous Message
    >
    > No, thats not what I was talking about. They were tuning the MAX_INTS
    > parameter for the em
    > driver, which can hold off interrupts to reduce system overhead.
    > Instead of minimizing the load,
    > they were focused on squeezing a few extra bits out of iperf, which is
    > not how you tune
    > performance. If you get 700Kb/s and have a 95% load and can get
    > 695Kb/s with 60% load,
    > which is better? Plus they were testing with a regular PCI bus, so
    > they were hitting the
    > wall on the bus throughput, which changes all the timings, so it was
    > just a stupid test in
    > general.[/ref]


    I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying.
     

    Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and
    unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux
    and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to
    discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were
    just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get
    some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that
    Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD
    was bad and left us to duke it out.
     
    So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with
    the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav
    access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look
    at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I
    wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to
    service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would
    be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use
    netperf too?

    I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with
    proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if
    speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is
    using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?

    I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright.

    Check this out:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html
    http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice

    Inparticular:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html
    jason Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    If you haven't used amd64 then why are you qualified to comment
    on the subject? If he's using the same settings for i386 and amd64,
    then the results should be balanced. I think the point here is that
    the same settings, which are probably the defaults, run a lot
    slower on amd64 than i386. And I don't see that you have
    any insight to provide.

    I hope FreeBSD hasn't become linux; in that it doesnt work
    out of the box and you have to selectively kludge it to show
    good results in any particular benchmark? Thats what made
    FreeBSD good historically. It was just good in general.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Nick Pavlica <com>
    To: Boris Spirialitious <com>
    Cc: org
    Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:05:59 -0700
    Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    Hi Boris,
    I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet,
    but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your
    frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x
    performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum
    sustained disk write of 15Mb/s to 90Mb/s on a file server. That said,
    to help you get a better response to your question I would suggest
    trying these things:

    - Doent and post your testing procedures and results. This will
    allow others to get a much clearer picture of what may be happening.
    As I'm sure you know support via e-mail is very difficult because
    there is so much information that is missing.

    - You may want to try the performance list if you don't get any
    answers from this list.

    - File a problem report so that the developers are aware of your
    situation. I don't think that they spend allot of time on this list.

    (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/index.html)

    I hope this helps!
    --Nick





    What optimizations have you done to this point?
    _______________________________________________
    org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    "org"

    em1897@aol.com Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    I think that warning people that the good name of "FreeBSD" is being
    tainted by the current band of clowns is very productive. Its more like
    a religion now; I've never seen so many people in total denial that
    their
    beliefs are completely wrong. A lot of people are wasting a lot of time
    because of this propaganda. The cluelessness in the performance
    list is a good indication.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: jason henson <rr.com>
    To: com
    Cc: org; com
    Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500
    Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    com wrote:
     [/ref]
    doing. Check out some of the threads on >> performance testing. They
    tune little pieces here >> and there, and break 10 other things in the
    process. >> Matt Dillon "determined" that 10,000 ints/second >> was
    "optimal". Of course if you're passing 10Kpps >> that means you get an
    interrupt for every >> packet. >> >> They're playing pin the tail on
    the donkey. >> > 
    unsure of what he was asking. I also seem to remember that discussion >
    you are referring too. IIRC, 10,000hz for pooling was the setting they 
    based card polling hurt a little because the card was already ding its 
    constant, and system > load rose with an 64bit system. This right? If
    he was using GENERIC on > a smp system he was only using 1 cpu with out
    a recompile. There is > just so much that could be wrong and he gives
    no information on his > system or settings. > Doess he have 2 amd64 pcs
    with 2 different installs of 5.3, or a > single machine that he ran
    both versions on? The router, is that a > third machine that was an
    amd64 system, or something else? He says > i386, but an up to date 5.3
    world doesn't support 386 with out a work > around. The least commom
    setting is now 486, but a build for 686 would > be better. Did he tell
    you if he had polling on? > > So I guess it is a good thing you were
    able to help him, because I > couldn't. Not to mention the flame bait
    you through out, well, that > would be wrong.
    _______________________________________________ > 
    Instead of minimizing the load, 
    is > not how you tune 
    695Kb/s with 60% load, 
    they were hitting the 

    I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand what you were saying.
     
    thing. > I take an i386 disk 
    4 > required differences, 
    buildworld runs faster, 
    so > you likely have a 
    But > its not going to make 

    Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you platitudinal and
    unproductive message that I believe would just drive Boris onto linux
    and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for some one else to
    discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear the truth, you were
    just not saying anything worth his time. But atleast now we can get
    some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also had the idea that
    Boris was just trolling because he has not responded, just said FreeBSD
    was bad and left us to duke it out.
     
    "org" 
    So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with
    the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav
    access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look
    at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I
    wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to
    service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would
    be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use
    netperf too?
    I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with
    proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if
    speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is
    using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?

    I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright.

    Check this out:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html
    http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice

    Inparticular:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html


    em1897@aol.com Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    Maybe you shouldn't prejudge. Its clear than no one with their
    own addresses has any answers.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Subhro <com>
    To: com; org
    Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:37:12 +0530
    Subject: RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

     
    like 

    <snip>

    OH NO!!! ANOTHER AOLer.

    One more entry added to my kill list.

    THIS IS MY EARNEST REQUEST TO ALL THE LIST MEMBERS. BANDWIDTH IS VERY
    COSTLY
    HERE SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE BANDWIDTH AND TIME BY FEEDING
    TROLLS.

    Best Regards
    S.

    Indian Institute of Information Technology
    Subhro Sankha Kar
    Block AQ-13/1, Sector V
    Salt Lake City
    PIN 700091
    India

    em1897@aol.com Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    I think the point of a list is so that someone can say "oh yes, I had
    problems with the
    em driver in amd64 also; try card X." But instead you get a lot of
    people with no real
    idea trying to explain away the problem, as if there is no chance that
    the amd64
    implementant just plain s wind. If someone who actually has an
    amd64 build
    could post some usage/load numbers, or someone who did some testing
    with
    various hardware, that might be useful. So far what we have is like a
    bunch of
    Mothers trying to defend their children without having any viable
    answers or
    evidence than amd64 is any good at all. Only a people who say
    nonsensical
    things like "my opteron s away any P4", like a kid bragging about
    his
    mustang or something.

    The em driver has a standard hold-off of 8000 ints/second, so thats not
    likely
    the problem. Its likely to be the same in both i386 and amd64, so its a
    control.


    <snippage>
    So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism runs like crap with
    the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system, and you might hav
    access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info on the irqs? Look
    at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe report it back? I
    wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are taking longer to
    service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some hardware info would
    be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat -i for a log, and use
    netperf too?
    I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may have a problem with
    proper hardware support. I can't really said it is bad hardware if
    speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe the driver he is
    using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?

    I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below he will be alright.

    Check this out:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html
    http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice

    Inparticular:
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html
    _______________________________________________
    org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    "org"



    em1897@aol.com Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre


    --- jason henson <rr.com> wrote:
     [/ref]
    > what [/ref]
    > [/ref]
    > process. [/ref]

    > >
    > > You could understand what he was saying? I wanted[/ref]
    > to help but was 
    > remember that discussion 
    > was the setting they 
    > and with the fxp 
    > was already ding its 
    > redundant, it was best to 
    > constant, and system 
    > was using GENERIC on 
    > recompile. There is 
    > information on his 
    > installs of 5.3, or a 
    > router, is that a 
    > something else? He says 
    > 386 with out a work 
    > build for 686 would 
    > help him, because I 
    > through out, well, that 
    > _______________________________________________ 
    > tuning the MAX_INTS 
    > system overhead. 
    > out of iperf, which is 
    > load and can get 
    > regular PCI bus, so 
    > timings, so it was 
    >
    >
    > I would say 60% load. Now I completely understand
    > what you were saying.

    > seen the same thing. 
    > except for the 3 or 4 
    > maybe your 
    > mechanism runs like crap, so 
    > otherwise, just a 
    > another. 
    > truth, so flame away. But 
    >
    > Ahh! More flame bait! I just didn't like you
    > platitudinal and
    > unproductive message that I believe would just drive
    > Boris onto linux
    > and leave a possible open problem on FreeBSD for
    > some one else to
    > discover latter. It's not that I don't want to hear
    > the truth, you were
    > just not saying anything worth his time. But
    > atleast now we can get
    > some where to help him and the amd64 port. I also
    > had the idea that
    > Boris was just trolling because he has not
    > responded, just said FreeBSD
    > was bad and left us to duke it out.

    >[/ref]
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 
    > So the whole interrupt/process switching mechanism
    > runs like crap with
    > the amd64 build? Since I don't have a amd64 system,
    > and you might hav
    > access to atleast 1, how about getting a little info
    > on the irqs? Look
    > at systat -vmstat or vmstat -i under load? aybe
    > report it back? I
    > wonder if the irq rates are changing, or irqs are
    > taking longer to
    > service. Either there is a problem. Ofcourse some
    > hardware info would
    > be nice, chipset and cpu? Maybe you script vmstat
    > -i for a log, and use
    > netperf too?
    >
    > I like Nick's followup. I would guese Boris may
    > have a problem with
    > proper hardware support. I can't really said it is
    > bad hardware if
    > speeds are the same, just high load(right?). Maybe
    > the driver he is
    > using is not good for 64bit as it is for 32bit?
    >
    > I think if Boris studies the thread I like to below
    > he will be alright.
    >
    > Check this out:
    >[/ref]
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html 
    http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice 
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html 
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html 

    I always use

    systat -vmstat 1

    to monitor usage. I also know to set MAX_INTS
    in if_em.c file. I use 8000 for both tests.
    I try with broadcom NICs soon.

    Boris



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    http://smallbusiness./resources/
    Boris Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre

    I think you may be right. I try Broadcom gigE card
    with same results. Very slow for amd64 build. With
    same hardware, very good results with 4.9/i386,
    not too bad with 5.4-pre/i386, and very, very
    poor with 5.4-pre/amd64.

    Boris

    --- com wrote: 
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/thrd66.html 
    http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502171636.10361.drice 
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19651.html 
    http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/freebsd-stable/msg19679.html 
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions 



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Make Yahoo! your home page
    http://www./r/hs
    Boris Guest

  13. #13

    Default RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre


    --- Subhro <com> wrote: 
    > [mailto:owner-freebsd- 
    > FreeBSD 5.4-pre 
    > "FreeBSD" is being 
    > productive. Its more like 
    > total denial that 
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > OH NO!!! ANOTHER AOLer.
    >
    > One more entry added to my kill list.
    >
    > THIS IS MY EARNEST REQUEST TO ALL THE LIST MEMBERS.
    > BANDWIDTH IS VERY COSTLY
    > HERE SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE BANDWIDTH
    > AND TIME BY FEEDING
    > TROLLS.[/ref]

    You use gmail, so what bandwidth of yours is
    it using?

    Boris



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    http://smallbusiness./resources/
    Boris Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 14th, 03:15 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 11th, 11:00 AM
  3. trouble booting 5.3 on i386 IBM
    By J.D. Bronson in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 25th, 06:31 PM
  4. Compile FreeBSD RELENG_5 on FreeBSD 4-STABLE
    By Brovo Karokin in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 25th, 09:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139