Re: hyper threading.
--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Polling is simply unecessary in most cases. You > could get > > better performance using an em driver and setting > max > > ints to whatever is optimal for your system. > Polling adds > > latency and over head for no good reason. > > Polling often provides better performance, at the > expense of higher > overhead. If you understood what I said, then you wouldn't say what you said, because its just plain wrong. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
--- Subhro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:owner-freebsd- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 20:53 > > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > Subject: 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 > > > > 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. 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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
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 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 sucks 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 blows 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. > > > > 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 > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
--- jason henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > 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 would say 60% load. Now I completely understand > what you were saying. > > > > > 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. > > 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. > > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > 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?)
Re: Teaming / Load Sharing of NIC Cards
So is card heating up too much from all this work? Adding device to bus and adding more software layers will just make cpu work harder. Boris --- Doug Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never said it was neccessary. I've just heard > about > it and have been told its "suppose" to even out the > work load on each card so one card isnt doing all > the > work, and with me having two cards i thought i would > see about trying it out. > > Doug > ---- > --- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- Doug Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Group, > > > > > > I have an HP Proliant DL380 G3 and I am > interested > > > in > > > teaming or load sharing (what ever its called) > my > > > two > > > NIC cards that are in my server. > > > > > > I have been reading about this that I am suppose > > to > > > find free bsd drivers to make this work??? > > > > > > I am interested in doing this, but dont know > what > > to > > > do or where to start, is there anyone who has > done > > > this before with my kind of setup (dl380 server > > and > > > free bsd O/S) that can either point me in the > > right > > > direction, explain to me how to do this, or walk > > me > > > through it? > > > > I am curious about why people want this. Are you > > having problems with your ethernet lines going > > down? Is GigE not fast enough for you? It is > > very strange why this is necessary? > > > > Boris > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources > site! > > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced > search. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
--- Emanuel Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 01:19 schrieb Boris > Spirialitious: > > -- Emanuel Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris > > > > > Spirialitious: > > > > I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em > > > > card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs > traffic > > > > and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is > > > > about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system > run > > > > with 85% load. How could be so slow? What > tuning > > > > extra is needed for amd64 kernels? > > > > > > 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured > duplex/negotiation > > > mode. > > > But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many > > > performance improvements were > > > achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE > > > branch (BETA1 is a relese of > > > FreeBSD 5-STABLE) > > > > I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled > 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. 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.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Teaming / Load Sharing of NIC Cards
--- Doug Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Group, > > I have an HP Proliant DL380 G3 and I am interested > in > teaming or load sharing (what ever its called) my > two > NIC cards that are in my server. > > I have been reading about this that I am suppose to > find free bsd drivers to make this work??? > > I am interested in doing this, but dont know what to > do or where to start, is there anyone who has done > this before with my kind of setup (dl380 server and > free bsd O/S) that can either point me in the right > direction, explain to me how to do this, or walk me > through it? I am curious about why people want this. Are you having problems with your ethernet lines going down? Is GigE not fast enough for you? It is very strange why this is necessary? Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: AMD64 very slow!
-- Emanuel Strobl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Am Mittwoch, 23. März 2005 00:38 schrieb Boris > Spirialitious: > > I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em > > card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic > > and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is > > about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run > > with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning > > extra is needed for amd64 kernels? > > 200kB/s sounds like misconfigured duplex/negotiation > mode. > But why don't you try FreeBSD 5.4-BETA1? Many > performance improvements were > achieved and stability is given in the -STABLE > branch (BETA1 is a relese of > FreeBSD 5-STABLE) I am sorry, I mean 200Mb/s. It is a controlled stream Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
AMD64 very slow!
I have opteron 246 system with 2 port intel em card. We have test bed with about 200Kbs traffic and we route through 5.3/i386 system. Load is about 50%. With same settings, amd64 system run with 85% load. How could be so slow? What tuning extra is needed for amd64 kernels? Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kenneth Culver wrote: > > Quoting Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Boris Spirialitious wrote: > >> > >>> --- Boris Spirialitious > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> --- Matthew Seaman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:22AM -0800, > Boris > >>>>> Spirialitious wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> When opteron support start for Freebsd? I > have > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 4.9. > >>>>> > >>>>>> is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use > 5.x. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can > I > >>>>>> use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? > Any > >>>>>> big problems? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. > > > > > > Actually due to the onboard memory controller it > performs significantly > > better > > than like-priced chips from intel. > > 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. 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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Boris Spirialitious wrote: > > --- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >>--- Matthew Seaman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:22AM -0800, Boris > >>>Spirialitious wrote: > >>> > >>>>When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have > >>> > >>>4.9. > >>> > >>>>is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. > >>> > >>>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. > >>> > >>> > >>>>Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I > >>>>use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any > >>>>big problems? > >>> > >>>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. > >> > >>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, 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 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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:22AM -0800, Boris > > Spirialitious wrote: > > > When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have > > 4.9. > > > is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. > > > > 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. > > > > > Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I > > > use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any > > > big problems? > > > > 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. > > 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 I am waiting for your answer. Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:22AM -0800, Boris > Spirialitious wrote: > > When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have > 4.9. > > is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. > > 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. > > > Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I > > use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any > > big problems? > > 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. 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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- cyb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? 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 > > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 09:43 -0800, Boris > Spirialitious wrote: > > --- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use > > Opteron here > > > > Boris > > -- > GnuPG key : 0xD25FCC81 | > http://cyb.websimplex.de/pubkey.asc > Fingerprint: D182 6F22 7EEC DD4C 0F6E 564C 691B > 0372 D25F CC81 > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Stas Myasnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:43:33 -0800 (PST), Boris > Spirialitious > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ïèñàë(à): > > >> When opteron support start for Freebsd? I have > 4.9. > >> is supported? Or 4.11 better? I can't use 5.x. > > AFAIK FreeBSD4 isn't run on amd64 in 64-bit mode. > Though 5 do. > > >> Will a i386 disk boot on opteron system? Can I > > Yes. Opteron backwards compatible with ia32. > > >> use same disk image for intel and amd MBs? Any > > Hmm... Intel making Opteron's? > 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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD 4.x Opteron Question
--- Boris Spirialitious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 Does anyone know answer please? Someone must use Opteron here Boris __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
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.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Mrs. Butterworth vs Vermont Maid
Colin Raven vomits: >I have nothing but *stellar* regard for the individuals who take such >immense time and effort to help others on this list. I feel privileged >to belong to this community, and grateful for a huge amount of guidance >advice and help I've received here. I wouldn't have a working OS >without also wildly enthusiastic about this incredible OS. I can't say enough >good things about it. Simply put, it's the best (for what I utilize it >for anyways!!) You are what we call wimp in Russia. Does your woman beat you also? - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Mrs. Butterworth vs Vermont Maid
What is this subject? - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Unable to install FreeBSD 5.3 on a SMP box
>Hi there >I'm trying to install FreeBSD 5.3 on a dual p3 box: >asus cuv4x-d mobo >adaptec AHA-2940 uw and 29160 > >I'm using the lastest bios > >when I try to boot I get a lot of hexadecimal codes >and the I get BTX HALTED > >I dont think there is any hardware problem because >GNU/Linux installs without a single problem > Why don't you donate your hardware to FreeBSD team? Ted will arrange. Boris Jorge Mario G. Mazo __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Thank you!
Oh, but I do understand! FreeBSD is not good choice for companies that need support for the latest hardware. Thank you for informing me. Boris Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just wanted to thank you for making Freebsd 5.3 so badly. We changed > to linux and our application runs so much faster its unbelievable. I report > a small problem and they work hard to fix it. Not like freebsd do they > make fun of me or ask me to give them hardware. Its like a real product > this linux! Glad you're happy. Sorry you can not seem to comprehend a user volunteer supported system. Bye, jerry > > Boris > > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Thank you!
I just wanted to thank you for making Freebsd 5.3 so badly. We changed to linux and our application runs so much faster its unbelievable. I report a small problem and they work hard to fix it. Not like freebsd do they make fun of me or ask me to give them hardware. Its like a real product this linux! Boris - Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! Get yours free! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD
One system cost me 3 months salary in Russia. Is this how you treat your users? Why can't your developer use the machine they used to make 5.3 work? Everyone tell me to use LINUX. Now I know why. You support bad slow version and not good one. Very stupid people. Boris Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Boris > Spirialitious > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:25 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD > > > None of the new Supermicro hardware I've tried works with Freebsd > 4.10 properly. I've seen that this has been reported by others. > They are all based on the 7520 and 7530 Intel chips. 5.3 works > ok, but a 3.4/800 processor on 5.3 is slower than a 3.06/533 > processor on our old 7502 chipset based system with 4.9. What can > be done? Donate one of the systems to a FreeBSD kernel developer. Ted __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Supermicro Hardware and FreeBSD
None of the new Supermicro hardware I've tried works with Freebsd 4.10 properly. I've seen that this has been reported by others. They are all based on the 7520 and 7530 Intel chips. 5.3 works ok, but a 3.4/800 processor on 5.3 is slower than a 3.06/533 processor on our old 7502 chipset based system with 4.9. What can be done? Will OpenBSD have the same problem? I really want to use FreeBSD. Boris - Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: inetd problem with 5.3-RELEASE
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 05:16:10PM -0800, Boris Spirialitious wrote: > > inetd[xxx]: unknown rpc/udp6 rpc/tcp6 > > Any modification of GENERIC from 5.3 seems to have the > > problem. I have another config that I ported from 4.x that > > works fine (with lots of stuff turned off). It must be some > > driver that has a dependency that isn't working. Note that > > INET6 is enabled. > > > > What causes this error? > > Perhaps your inetd.conf is bad; can you show it to us? > > kris > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > only ftp and telnet are enbled. Everything below here is disabled. Are you *absolutely certain* about this? Note that there's no mention of rpc/udp6 or rpc/tcp6 in what you posted; it does appear later on in the sample inetd.conf, but in a way that isn't a syntax error. > As I said, it works fine with a config copied from 4.x. Here is a > kernel that doesn't work. Sorry about the format, but yahoo is no > good. I don't see what could cause this in your kernel config (even in theory), but if you have a kernel that works on the same machine you could diff them to find out what it is. inetd[xxx]: unknown rpc/udp6 rpc/tcp6> As I said, it works fine with a config copied from 4.x. Here is a > kernel that doesn't work. Sorry about the format, but yahoo is no > good. >I don't see what could cause this in your kernel config (even in >theory), but if you have a kernel that works on the same machine you could diff them to find out what it is. Kris Yes, if it was something obvious then I wouldn't have had to ask the question. There are 100 differences. Doesn't anyone know what things might cause this error? Is it looking for a module that isn't loaded? Some piece of code thats missing? One or two clues? TIA Boris - Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: inetd problem with 5.3-RELEASE
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:18:34PM -0800, Boris Spirialitious wrote: > When I build some custom kernels, inetd is refusing to run > with the error: > > inetd[xxx]: unknown rpc/udp6 rpc/tcp6 > > > Any modification of GENERIC from 5.3 seems to have the > problem. I have another config that I ported from 4.x that > works fine (with lots of stuff turned off). It must be some > driver that has a dependency that isn't working. Note that > INET6 is enabled. > > What causes this error? Perhaps your inetd.conf is bad; can you show it to us? kris ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, here it is: # $FreeBSD: src/etc/inetd.conf,v 1.63 2003/06/09 21:04:30 markm Exp $ # # Internet server configuration database # # Define *both* IPv4 and IPv6 entries for dual-stack support. # To disable a service, comment it out by prefixing the line with '#'. # To enable a service, remove the '#' at the beginning of the line. # ftp stream tcp nowait root/usr/libexec/ftpd ftpd -l #ftpstream tcp6nowait root/usr/libexec/ftpd ftpd -l #sshstream tcp nowait root/usr/sbin/sshd sshd -i -4 #sshstream tcp6nowait root/usr/sbin/sshd sshd -i -6 telnet stream tcp nowait root/usr/libexec/telnetdtelnetd #telnet stream tcp6nowait root/usr/libexec/telnetdtelnetd #shell stream tcp nowait root/usr/libexec/rshd rshd #shell stream tcp6nowait root/usr/libexec/rshd rshd #login stream tcp nowait root/usr/libexec/rlogindrlogind #login stream tcp6nowait root/usr/libexec/rlogindrlogind #finger stream tcp nowait/3/10 nobody /usr/libexec/fingerd fingerd -s #finger stream tcp6nowait/3/10 nobody /usr/libexec/fingerd fingerd -s #exec stream tcp nowait root/usr/libexec/rexecd rexecd only ftp and telnet are enbled. Everything below here is disabled. As I said, it works fine with a config copied from 4.x. Here is a kernel that doesn't work. Sorry about the format, but yahoo is no good. # # GENERIC -- Generic kernel configuration file for FreeBSD/i386 # # For more information on this file, please read the handbook section on # Kernel Configuration Files: # # http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html # # The handbook is also available locally in /usr/share/doc/handbook # if you've installed the doc distribution, otherwise always see the # FreeBSD World Wide Web server (http://www.FreeBSD.org/) for the # latest information. # # An exhaustive list of options and more detailed explanations of the # device lines is also present in the ../../conf/NOTES and NOTES files. # If you are in doubt as to the purpose or necessity of a line, check first # in NOTES. # # $FreeBSD: src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC,v 1.413.2.6.2.2 2004/10/24 18:02:52 scottl Exp $ machine i386 cpu I486_CPU cpu I586_CPU cpu I686_CPU ident TEST # To statically compile in device wiring instead of /boot/device.hints #hints "GENERIC.hints" # Default places to look for devices. options SCHED_4BSD # 4BSD scheduler options INET # InterNETworking options INET6 # IPv6 communications protocols options FFS # Berkeley Fast Filesystem options SOFTUPDATES # Enable FFS soft updates support options UFS_ACL # Support for access control lists options UFS_DIRHASH # Improve performance on big directories options MD_ROOT # MD is a potential root device options NFSCLIENT # Network Filesystem Client options NFSSERVER # Network Filesystem Server options NFS_ROOT # NFS usable as /, requires NFSCLIENT #options MSDOSFS # MSDOS Filesystem options CD9660 # ISO 9660 Filesystem options PROCFS # Process filesystem (requires PSEUDOFS) options PSEUDOFS # Pseudo-filesystem framework options GEOM_GPT # GUID Partition Tables. options COMPAT_43 # Compatible with BSD 4.3 [KEEP THIS!] options COMPAT_FREEBSD4 # Compatible with FreeBSD4 #options SCSI_DELAY=15000 # Delay (in ms) before probing SCSI #options KTRACE # ktrace(1) support options SYSVSHM # SYSV-style shared memory options SYSVMSG # SYSV-style message queues options SYSVSEM # SYSV-style semaphores options _KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING # POSIX P1003_1B real-time extensions options KBD_INSTALL_CDEV # install a CDEV entry in /dev #options AHC_REG_PRETTY_PRINT # Print register bitfields in debug # output. Adds ~128k to driver. #options AHD_REG_PRETTY_PRINT # Print register bitfields in debug # output. Adds ~215k to driver. options ADAPTIVE_GIANT # Giant mutex is adaptive. device apic # I/O APIC # Bus support. Do not remove isa, even if you have no isa slots device isa device eisa device pci #
inetd problem with 5.3-RELEASE
When I build some custom kernels, inetd is refusing to run with the error: inetd[xxx]: unknown rpc/udp6 rpc/tcp6 Any modification of GENERIC from 5.3 seems to have the problem. I have another config that I ported from 4.x that works fine (with lots of stuff turned off). It must be some driver that has a dependency that isn't working. Note that INET6 is enabled. What causes this error? Boris - Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
