Professional Web Applications Themes

FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question - FreeBSD

When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have 4.9. is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any big problems? Thanks, Boris __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness./resources/...

  1. #1

    Default FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have 4.9.
    is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x.

    Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I
    use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any
    big problems?

    Thanks,

    Boris



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

  2. #2

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Boris Spirialitious <com>
    wrote: 

    Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use
    Opteron here

    Boris



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

  3. #3

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/amd64.html

    Looks like you will need to use 5.3-release (or
    5.3-stable/5.4-prerelease if you have more than 4GB).

    Why can you not use 5.3?


    On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 09:43 -0800, Boris Spirialitious wrote: 
    >
    > Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use
    > Opteron here
    >
    > Boris[/ref]

    --
    GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 | http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc
    Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B 0372 D25F CC81




    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQBCOHhaaRsDctJfzIERAi/eAJ9P9WuiuTiKH1c2DAtsT+c0nf0R3gCgktiz
    azHyXaBhACmKQ7OBREVISb8=
    =Uh2e
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    cyb Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:43:33 -0800 (PST), Boris Spirialitious
    <com> писал(а):
     [/ref]

    AFAIK FreeBSD4 isn't run on amd64 in 64-bit mode. Though 5 do.
     [/ref]

    Yes. Opteron backwards compatible with ia32.
     [/ref]

    Hmm... Intel making Opteron's?
    Stas Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:22AM -0800, Boris Spirialitious wrote: 

    Well, AMD64 support as a tier-1 platform only came in with 5.x, so
    you're S.O.L. if you have to use a 4.x release version.
     

    You can generally run AMD64 machines in IA32 mode -- but what would be
    the point? All you get then is a machine that costs more than an
    equivalent IA32 box and that probably performs worse.

    Cheers,

    Matthew

    --
    Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 8 Dane Court Manor
    School Rd
    PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Tilmanstone
    Tel: +44 1304 617253 Kent, CT14 0JL UK

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iQCVAwUBQjiRpJr7OpndfbmCAQLufgQAjNXtY3pvmLIHCiDX6a D8GAlfJ4/ddByB
    SjOZYAB2R0XkdpgCENPd1zq46oCxF4eOVu8+jAzTcHXEispCVf n/KnLs3SfB/3MP
    2g5co7VzhqLuVrbNMuCWfohLwTOkpYlq4XRfXJkoVk56bWgWXh 9wZFzEJItZ1Tws
    C4m2XZ5Lek0=
    =Z8EH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Matthew Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Stas Myasnikov <by> wrote: [/ref]
    > 4.9. [/ref]
    >
    > AFAIK FreeBSD4 isn't run on amd64 in 64-bit mode.
    > Though 5 do.
    > [/ref]
    >
    > Yes. Opteron backwards compatible with ia32.
    > [/ref]
    >
    > Hmm... Intel making Opteron's?
    >[/ref]

    No, we have product that run on intel machine. It
    would be nice if we could use same image for both
    intel and operton platforms.

    Boris



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

  7. #7

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- cyb <net> wrote: 

    5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use
    faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S?
    Please don't start with flames. This is what I
    feel.

    I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with
    1 or 2GB of RAM?

    Boris



     [/ref]
    > 4.9. 
    > >
    > > Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use
    > > Opteron here
    > >
    > > Boris[/ref]
    >
    > --
    > GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 |
    > http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc
    > Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B
    > 0372 D25F CC81
    >
    >
    >
    >[/ref]



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

  8. #8

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    Boris,
    I would agree that my initial impression of 5.3 was that it was slow
    compared to 4.x. After some tuning, I now have 5.3 running at an
    acceptable performance level. You may want to start testing the newer
    versions of 5 current. I have noticed improved performance on my test
    servers and believe that 5.4 will demonstrate an improvement in
    performance. I know that the guys on the performance list would like
    to get some good feedback if you find any specific bottlenecks with it
    as well.

    --Nick


    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:51:43 -0800 (PST), Boris Spirialitious
    <com> wrote: 
    >
    > 5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use
    > faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S?
    > Please don't start with flames. This is what I
    > feel.
    >
    > I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with
    > 1 or 2GB of RAM?
    >
    > Boris

    > > 4.9. 
    > >
    > > --
    > > GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 |
    > > http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc
    > > Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B
    > > 0372 D25F CC81
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    > http://smallbusiness./resources/
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "org"
    >[/ref]
    Nick Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    On Wednesday 16 March 2005 22:49, Boris Spirialitious wrote:
     

    You can, provided you use the i386 version of FreeBSD and don't optimize the
    build for anything above 686.
    RW Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Matthew Seaman <co.uk>
    wrote: 
    > 4.9. 
    >
    > Well, AMD64 support as a tier-1 platform only came
    > in with 5.x, so
    > you're S.O.L. if you have to use a 4.x release
    > version.

    >
    > You can generally run AMD64 machines in IA32 mode --
    > but what would be
    > the point? All you get then is a machine that costs
    > more than an
    > equivalent IA32 box and that probably performs
    > worse.[/ref]

    That is very curious to say. Isn't the advantage
    of Opteron the superior IO architecture? There is
    not much advantage with 64 bit computing. What is
    faster about it? Pointers are bigger, so it use
    more cache for less. NOt much 64bit math in
    OS. Why do you say it will perform worse?

    Boris



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

  11. #11

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    On Wednesday 16 March 2005 20:05, Matthew Seaman wrote: 

    The core market for the AMD64 is 32-bit Windows XP desktop machines, and they
    are good value in that role.

    When I recently upgraded my PC, I noticed that a lot of retailers no-longer
    even have 32-bit AMD CPUs, except for low-speed Semperons.
    RW Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Boris Spirialitious <com>
    wrote: 
    > > 4.9. 
    > >
    > > Well, AMD64 support as a tier-1 platform only came
    > > in with 5.x, so
    > > you're S.O.L. if you have to use a 4.x release
    > > version.
    > > 
    > >
    > > You can generally run AMD64 machines in IA32 mode[/ref]
    > -- 
    > costs 
    >
    > That is very curious to say. Isn't the advantage
    > of Opteron the superior IO architecture? There is
    > not much advantage with 64 bit computing. What is
    > faster about it? Pointers are bigger, so it use
    > more cache for less. NOt much 64bit math in
    > OS. Why do you say it will perform worse?
    >
    > Boris[/ref]

    I am waiting for your answer.

    Boris



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
    http://mobile./maildemo
    Boris Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    Boris Spirialitious wrote: 
    >>
    >>--
    >> 
    >>
    >>costs
    >> 
    >>
    >>That is very curious to say. Isn't the advantage
    >>of Opteron the superior IO architecture? There is
    >>not much advantage with 64 bit computing. What is
    >>faster about it? Pointers are bigger, so it use
    >>more cache for less. NOt much 64bit math in
    >>OS. Why do you say it will perform worse?[/ref][/ref]

    Boris, I am sure you realize that a great deal of the 64 bit IO
    architecture is leveraged from the 64 bit instructions set, that allows
    things like 64 bit fetches. Will there be a gain without using the 64
    bit instruction set? Yes. Will it be as large? No.
     
    >
    >
    > I am waiting for your answer.
    >
    > Boris
    >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
    > http://mobile./maildemo
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "org"[/ref]

    Chuck Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Chuck Robey <org> wrote: [/ref]
    > <co.uk> [/ref]
    > came [/ref]
    >
    > Boris, I am sure you realize that a great deal of
    > the 64 bit IO
    > architecture is leveraged from the 64 bit
    > instructions set, that allows
    > things like 64 bit fetches. Will there be a gain
    > without using the 64
    > bit instruction set? Yes. Will it be as large?
    > No.[/ref]

    I do not see that. Most adapter card registers only
    32bits, and PCIX dma is 64bits anyway, so what
    64bit fetches are there? Larger pointers take
    up more cache space. Benchmark show that 64bit
    pointers slow memory operation. So the difference
    overall may be small.

    I not argue about 64bit maybe faster. But the
    hypertransport architecture may be enough to
    make the cost worthwhile.

    Boris



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

  15. #15

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    Quoting Chuck Robey <org>:
     [/ref][/ref]

    Actually due to the onboard memory controller it performs significantly better
    than like-priced chips from intel.

    Ken
    Kenneth Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    Kenneth Culver wrote: [/ref]
    >
    >
    > Actually due to the onboard memory controller it performs significantly
    > better
    > than like-priced chips from intel.[/ref]

    I completely agree with you, Ken, but I had the feeling that this fellow
    was flamebaiting me, and I didn't want to subject everyone to that. I
    was right to begin with: there is some gain from having the chip, there
    is more gain if you have the better instruction set. If folks need to
    know more, like I *know* you have, you read one of the many
    architectural sites on the web.

     

    Chuck Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question


    --- Chuck Robey <org> wrote: [/ref]
    > <com> [/ref]
    > <co.uk> [/ref]
    > Boris [/ref]
    > have [/ref]
    > 5.x. [/ref]
    > came [/ref]
    > I [/ref]
    > Any [/ref]
    > mode 
    > >
    > >
    > > Actually due to the onboard memory controller it[/ref]
    > performs significantly 
    >
    > I completely agree with you, Ken, but I had the
    > feeling that this fellow
    > was flamebaiting me, and I didn't want to subject
    > everyone to that. I
    > was right to begin with: there is some gain from
    > having the chip, there
    > is more gain if you have the better instruction set.
    > If folks need to
    > know more, like I *know* you have, you read one of
    > the many
    > architectural sites on the web.[/ref]

    Why you think flamebait? Mathew say it would be
    slower with 32bit code, and I agree with you, not
    him. I want him to answer, because he say things
    without knowing, so why answer at all? So many
    people talk but have no real understanding.

    Boris



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

  18. #18

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question




    :Boris,
    : I would agree that my initial impression of 5.3 was that it was slow
    :compared to 4.x. After some tuning, I now have 5.3 running at an
    :acceptable performance level. You may want to start testing the newer
    :versions of 5 current. I have noticed improved performance on my test
    :servers and believe that 5.4 will demonstrate an improvement in
    :performance. I know that the guys on the performance list would like
    :to get some good feedback if you find any specific bottlenecks with it
    :as well.
    :
    :--Nick

    FYI, I recently testing bridging/network performance on 5.4-pre and its
    about the same as 5.3: 25 to 30% more CPU load for the same traffic
    levels than 4.x. SMP drops packets at about 60% load and seems to
    have a lower capacity than UP. I'm sure some things are faster, but
    networking is a large component for most people I think.
    Threaded network stacks just don't seem to perform well,
    certainly not on UP. Linux MP works much better, but
    with 2 CPUs it has the capacity of FreeBSD 4.x with 1.
    So its hard to justify.

    FWIW, its quite a bit better with UP than DragonFLY, but
    dragonfly is much better with 2 processors.


    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:51:43 -0800 (PST), Boris Spirialitious
    <com> wrote: 
    >
    > 5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use
    > faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S?
    > Please don't start with flames. This is what I
    > feel.
    >
    > I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with
    > 1 or 2GB of RAM?
    >
    > Boris

    > > 4.9. 
    > >
    > > --
    > > GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 |
    > > http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc
    > > Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B
    > > 0372 D25F CC81
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    > http://smallbusiness./resources/
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to[/ref]
    "org" 


    em1897@aol.com Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    em1897,
    I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP
    stack performed very well. I was able to get 100% more throughput
    than Linux (2.6.10 FC3) under heavy load on the exact same hardware.
    I was actually surprised at the difference because I have been a Linux
    Zellot for years. I didn't see any packet loss in my tests, but I do
    have good quality networking gear and servers. I was happy enough
    after my testing that I'm going to move my 4.x servers to 5.4 when
    it's released. I haven't tested dragonfly yet, but get all the
    performance I need out of FreeBSD.

    --Nick


    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:55:14 -0500, com <com> wrote: 
    > >
    > > 5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use
    > > faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S?
    > > Please don't start with flames. This is what I
    > > feel.
    > >
    > > I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with
    > > 1 or 2GB of RAM?
    > >
    > > Boris
    > > 
    > >
    > > __________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    > > http://smallbusiness./resources/
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > org mailing list
    > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to[/ref]
    > "org" 
    >
    >[/ref]
    Nick Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Nick Pavlica <com>
    To: com <com>
    Cc: org
    Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:45:44 -0700
    Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question

    :em1897,
    : I'm curious how you are testing. In my testing, the 5.4 pre IP
    :stack performed very well. I was able to get 100% more throughput
    :than Linux (2.6.10 FC3) under heavy load on the exact same hardware.
    :I was actually surprised at the difference because I have been a Linux
    :Zellot for years. I didn't see any packet loss in my tests, but I do
    :have good quality networking gear and servers. I was happy enough
    :after my testing that I'm going to move my 4.x servers to 5.4 when
    :it's released. I haven't tested dragonfly yet, but get all the
    :performance I need out of FreeBSD.
    :
    :--Nick

    on a side note, I thought top posting was a no-no? I see gmail has the
    same issues as AOL. Or are the issues with the old s with their
    newsreaders? :-)

    I don't get your logic. You are converting your servers from 4.x to 5.4
    because you've found that 5.4 is faster than linux? Is that some sort
    of riddle? FreeBSD has always been faster than linux; I'm comparing
    FreeBSD 4.x to 5.4, so I'm not sure what linux has to do with
    anything here.

    What you can "get" in terms of throughput doesn't always give you
    the right answer. My tests measure kernel performance; as I'm
    interested in routing/packet-processing performance. Sockets add
    a tricky variable. But I take the IP stack out of the equation
    altogether
    by bridging packets through a box, and I prefer to use a 50% load
    as timings sometimes change when you start to saturate things
    unnaturally. You won't be running your machine at 100% load, so
    it makes no sense to test it that way.

    For the latest test I have a 3.06Ghz xeon bridging 486,000pps.
    For FreeBSD 4.9, this is a 50% load. The load under 5.4 is 65%.
    It tests interrupt and process switching performance, which for
    a networking device is a key performance indicator. (I think)
    that the 5.4 kernel is threaded, so there are latencies that
    are very difficult to overcome. Linux has been threaded for
    a long time, and always has been a poor Uniprocessor
    performer. 5.4 is better than linux with one processor,
    but if you are UP then
    4.x is clearly the way to go. Linux kills 5.4 with dual
    processors; in fact 5.4 seems to have higher network
    performance with 1 processor than 2. They still have
    a lot of issues to work out. DragonflyBSD has done a
    nice job with MP, but their performance is still a work
    in progress. For UP, their performance is dismal so
    its not quite where it needs to be, but its promising.

    I just wish that they had done a 64-bit version of
    4.x. Because at the moment it seems that there is
    no way to utilize the opteron fully without having
    to use a slow version of the OS, which negates
    the gains. Its a real shame.


    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:55:14 -0500, com <com>
    wrote: 
    slow 
    newer 
    test 
    it 
    its 
    > >
    > > 5.3 is too slow, and we have custom code. Why use
    > > faster hardware just to use slower version of O/S?
    > > Please don't start with flames. This is what I
    > > feel.
    > >
    > > I don't need so much RAM, so 4.x will work with
    > > 1 or 2GB of RAM?
    > >
    > > Boris
    > > 
    > >
    > > __________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    > > http://smallbusiness./resources/
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > org mailing list
    > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to[/ref]
    > "org" 
    >
    >[/ref]

    em1897@aol.com Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CFMX 8.01 Enterprise with 64-bit Opteron on Win 64-bit
    By patrickinmtl in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 21st, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 27th, 08:34 AM
  3. Compile FreeBSD RELENG_5 on FreeBSD 4-STABLE
    By Brovo Karokin in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 25th, 09:04 AM
  4. Can anyone advice about AMD Opteron 64-bit
    By Edzard in forum Oracle Server
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 3rd, 10:10 AM
  5. FreeBSD ftp question
    By Hubert Feyrer in forum Linux / Unix Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 11:00 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