Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:13:27PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Heinrich Rebehn wrote: [i386 vs. amd64] Overhead ?? Would this mean that the 64 bit version will run slower? It depends. Most applications will run somewhat faster, but there are cases where you might get a small slow-down. [snip] Doesn't the increased number of registers available when running amd64 really, really help when compared with the traditionally register-starved i386? I'm certainly of the opinion that plumping for amd64 over i386 is a sensible default. -- I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:20:03PM +0100, Mike Bristow wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 01:13:27PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: Heinrich Rebehn wrote: [i386 vs. amd64] Overhead ?? Would this mean that the 64 bit version will run slower? It depends. Most applications will run somewhat faster, but there are cases where you might get a small slow-down. [snip] Doesn't the increased number of registers available when running amd64 really, really help when compared with the traditionally register-starved i386? Except that you've made context switching more expensive as you have to save/restore more data/registers. Possibly function calls inside the code are also more expensive for the same reason. You also have to use natively compiled binaries and a compiler that can take advantage of the additional registers, and even then thats not a guarentee of increased performance. That will depend to a degree on the code being compiled. As with everything in life, there is a balance. For some applications 64bits are either required (due to memory addressing issues, for example) or offer some tangible benefit. Other applications suffer. YMMV. I'm certainly of the opinion that plumping for amd64 over i386 is a sensible default. -- I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just one remaining question, does what you said apply to the new Intel Core 2 Duo chips as well? It should apply to every machine that's supported by FreeBSD/amd64, i.e. any processor that supports AMD64 or EM64T (as intel calls it). Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
On Thursday 12 October 2006 09:53 am, Oliver Fromme wrote: Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just one remaining question, does what you said apply to the new Intel Core 2 Duo chips as well? It should apply to every machine that's supported by FreeBSD/amd64, i.e. any processor that supports AMD64 or EM64T (as intel calls it). Looks like Intel has renamed their version of the i386 64-bit extensions once again. First there was IA-32e (since they couldn't use IA-64 as that was the Itanium instruction set), then EM64T, now it's just Intel64. Guess they are trying to claim ownership of the amd64 architecture. :) http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34722 http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2F78786langpair=de%7Cenhl=enie=UTF8 http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Sep/bch20060929038986.htm Maybe we should all just switch to using x86-64? :) They really like to muddy the naming waters: Pentium-M renamed Core at the same time they announce the Core Architecture, but the Pentium-M is not based on Core. First CPU based on Core is called Core2. Ah, what fun! -- Freddie Cash, LPIC-2 CCNT CCLP Network Support Technician School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
Doesn't the increased number of registers available when running amd64 really, really help when compared with the traditionally register-starved i386? Yes, it seems to - evereything soemone else said about context switch verhead and compiles is true of course, but the FreeBSD compiler seems to be able to take advantgae of those registers, and everything I have measured on my home box has come out faster, if only by a few percentage points. But the only way for any particular users workload is to try it for themselves. Personally I think everything will end up 64 bit, so am just making the move now for the hell of it. Moved the Windows boxes first as they are expendable (though actually XP x64 is a lot more stable than the original XP pro I was running) and then moved the BSD machines over a few months later after doing a lot of testing. Have no regrets whatsoever. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 07:54:45AM +0200, Heinrich Rebehn wrote: Overhead ?? Would this mean that the 64 bit version will run slower? It will use more memory ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
Oliver, Thanks for the very insightful post on this topic. I have just one remaining question, does what you said apply to the new Intel Core 2 Duo chips as well? thanks, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
michael graffam wrote: Hi, my name is Michael and I'm and Open Source addict. Enough with the re-introductions, I guess. Essentially, I'd like to hear any opinions regarding the 64 bit and 32 bit FreeBSD ports. NDIS support is fine on both? My machine is a Compaq Presario V2000 series, in case someone has the same, or similar. i heard its better to run the i386 version of BSD on 64 bit machines due to the overhead, etc. unless you need what the 64 bit version gives you (addressing more memory, etc). It will work fine (I run both versions), but i am sure more can be turned up by a quick search of the mailing list etc. Eric ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another whirl with FreeBSD
Eric wrote: michael graffam wrote: Hi, my name is Michael and I'm and Open Source addict. Enough with the re-introductions, I guess. Essentially, I'd like to hear any opinions regarding the 64 bit and 32 bit FreeBSD ports. NDIS support is fine on both? My machine is a Compaq Presario V2000 series, in case someone has the same, or similar. i heard its better to run the i386 version of BSD on 64 bit machines due to the overhead, etc. unless you need what the 64 bit version gives you (addressing more memory, etc). It will work fine (I run both versions), but i am sure more can be turned up by a quick search of the mailing list etc. Overhead ?? Would this mean that the 64 bit version will run slower? -- Heinrich Rebehn University of Bremen Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering - Department of Telecommunications - Phone : +49/421/218-4664 Fax :-3341 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
