Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:33:31PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Thu, 2006-Nov-02 11:12:43 -0800, David Marshall wrote: > > More importantly for us, it's impossible to build a 32-bit > > perl on the amd64, and we don't need a 64-bit perl. Our > > apache/mod_perl servers are 3X bigger on the amd64, and that > > is unsatisfactory. > > In most cases, an amd64 executable will be larger than an i386 > executable. I'm surprised that you've found such a big > difference. > I also found a threefold increase in the memory footprint of apache/mod_php/mod_perl when I switched from i386 to amd64. From what I've read this isn't unheard of on 64 bit linux/apache/php. Most other applications tend to be slightly larger on amd64. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Thu, 2006-Nov-02 11:12:43 -0800, David Marshall wrote: >has 6.1/i386. The i386 has a better ubench score. This is not necessarily relevant to real-world performance. Both architectures have their strengths and weaknesses and you really need to make a decision based on how your own application performs. > More importantly >for us, it's impossible to build a 32-bit perl on the amd64, and we >don't need a 64-bit perl. Our apache/mod_perl servers are 3X bigger >on the amd64, and that is unsatisfactory. In most cases, an amd64 executable will be larger than an i386 executable. I'm surprised that you've found such a big difference. -- Peter Jeremy pgpXS8PUKwh0c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Hi!
> drwxr-xr-x ... lib32
> drwxr-xr-x ... lib64
> lrwxr-xr-x ... lib -> lib${ARCH_BITS}
>
> ARCH_BITS would be set to "64" globally, and it would be
> set to "32" for i386 applications. Then every program
> would find the correct libs automagically.
> PS: For those who are not familiar with variant symlinks:
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=ln
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=varsym
Just for the record: Secure Computing's Sidewinder Firewall
running on a BSD/OS with S.C.'s proprietary extensions
uses a similar mimic to reference files depending on
which "burb" (i.e. zone of trust) a process is running in.
Cool to see it in Dragonfly and hopefully FreeBSD. I can
imagine interesting setups for HA systems, for example:
script -> script${AM_I_ACTIVE_OR_PASSIVE}
Regards,
Patrick
--
punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung
Vorholzstr. 25Tel. 0721 9109 -0 Fax: -100
76137 Karlsruhe http://punkt.de
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On 10/31/06, Robert Blayzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure to do so? I spent all of last weekend trying to do this, with no solution determined. I read a couple of methods for doing this without reinstalling, but both indicated that a lot of know-how was needed and that the methods were neither complete nor bullet-proof. They both required access to the server to do magic things in single-user mode, which isn't available to me. For our purposes, I have decided to keep the machines as i386. I have two servers with identical hardware. One has 6.1/amd64, and the other has 6.1/i386. The i386 has a better ubench score. More importantly for us, it's impossible to build a 32-bit perl on the amd64, and we don't need a 64-bit perl. Our apache/mod_perl servers are 3X bigger on the amd64, and that is unsatisfactory. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Mark Linimon wrote:
> > - certain ports have i386 binaries (can't be fixed)
> > - certain ports have i386 asm code (can be fixed if there is fallback
> > C code)
>
> A partial solution to this is to get the i386 emulation and cross-
> building into better shape. If I really need a binary-only port
> then I can build/run it in emulation mode. This has bee discussed
> previously.
>
> IMHO, the FreeBSD/amd64 naming conventions make it much cleaner than
> (eg) Solaris and Linux as long as you only want native-mode apps.
> Unfortunately, it makes supporting i386 applications much harder
> (bacause they need to understand they need to look in .../lib32
> ISO .../lib).
Isn't someone working on porting variant symlinks over from
dragonfly? I thought it was a SoC project or something
like that. Using variant symlinks, the problem would be
easy to solve:
drwxr-xr-x ... lib32
drwxr-xr-x ... lib64
lrwxr-xr-x ... lib -> lib${ARCH_BITS}
ARCH_BITS would be set to "64" globally, and it would be
set to "32" for i386 applications. Then every program
would find the correct libs automagically.
Best regards
Oliver
PS: For those who are not familiar with variant symlinks:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=ln
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=varsym
--
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.
> Can the denizens of this group enlighten me about what the
> advantages of Python are, versus Perl ?
"python" is more likely to pass unharmed through your spelling
checker than "perl".
-- An unknown poster and Fredrik Lundh
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Greg Black wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: > > Greg Black wrote: > > > I found that a very large number of ports that mattered to me were marked > > > i386 only. > > > > In some cases these designations are obsolete. They will require people- > > power to work through them and see if they are overused. > > [...] > > it will take people with amd64 boxes running native willing to test them > > and report back. > [...] > Fair enough. In my defence, I'm fully committed at present and > I have only one amd64 machine which I need for my real work. I > can't afford to run it in amd64 mode, because so much of what I > need is currently broken in a 64-bit world. By the way, you don't necessarily have to have an amd64 machine in order to be able to run FreeBSSD/amd64 and try 64bit software. Qemu supports emulating an amd64 CPU on an i386 system (and vice versa, for that matter). So you can run FreeBSD/amd64 on top of FreeBSD/i386 inside qemu and play with it. Admittedly it will be noticeably slower than running natively, though, because you can't use the qemu accelerator kernel module when emulating a different architecture. 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. I suggested holding a "Python Object Oriented Programming Seminar", but the acronym was unpopular. -- Joseph Strout ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Peter Jeremy writes: | It would be nice to see the 32-bit emulation improved so that it is | possible to build/run the i386 versions of ports on an amd64 system. | This would be the best of both worlds. If I had any free time, I | would even work on this myself. I have this working well enough for everything that we build here. Our new build machines are running the amd64 kernels but we build for i386. After 6.2 is out I'll merge my uname/getosreldate changes to -stable and create a stub script to set the environment variables. We do some hacks to copy in the hosts ps, top, mount type things into a compat directory so it runs the hosts versions. It seems a few people are interested in this and it seems to be working well for us & myself. Maybe Kris can then convert his ports clusters over to amd64 OS'es to build everything. Doug A. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Greg Black wrote: [ ... ] Dunno about PAE on i386 (and don't much care). As it happens, my amd64 box is hardly higher end, but it has slots for 4GB and its doco claims that it can run with 4GB. However, to my great displeasure, I discovered after setting it up that both its BIOS and any OS I install see weird and obviously wrong amounts of memory if I install 4GB. The exact bad size varies, depending on various BIOS options, but ranges from 3.3GB up to 5.3GB (with various intermediate values, none of which is the correct 4GB). Updating the BIOS made no difference. It's common for BIOSes to move the RAM occupying the same address space as the PCI range reserved for hardware above 4 GB; depending on the size of your AGP aperature (if present). -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
> This doesn't tally with my experiences. I've had an amd64 laptop Me neither - but then I think this is a large case of 'your mileage may vary', as it entirely depends on what you are doing. I did find, like the original poster, that a number of language ports didn't work properly when I first tried it - but they wenr't critical for me so I jst found something else to play with. As a basic desktop system running X, firefox and thunderbird it works fine. As a server ruunning samba and apache it also works fine. but if you want to do slightly more obscure things with it then you can come I cropper (I ran up against the libffi issue too, and abandonned amd64 for about a year). If the stuff you want to run works properly under amd64 then it's preferable to i386 - but that depends on you knowing what you want to run. For a general purpose desktop I have no idea what interesting tipbit I might come across on the net and be curious about running so I stick with i386. For production machines and servers when I know exactly what software I am going to run forvever (more or less) then I am switching them all over to amd4. > (I'll also admit that I maintain some freeware software that is not > 64-bit clean - but it started life on a PDP-11 and I've got more So did BSD :-) -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Tue, 2006-Oct-31 14:44:46 -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > - certain ports have i386 binaries (can't be fixed) > - certain ports have i386 asm code (can be fixed if there is fallback > C code) A partial solution to this is to get the i386 emulation and cross- building into better shape. If I really need a binary-only port then I can build/run it in emulation mode. This has bee discussed previously. IMHO, the FreeBSD/amd64 naming conventions make it much cleaner than (eg) Solaris and Linux as long as you only want native-mode apps. Unfortunately, it makes supporting i386 applications much harder (bacause they need to understand they need to look in .../lib32 ISO .../lib). -- Peter Jeremy pgp6zCSH8jPxZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Wed, 2006-Nov-01 06:14:03 +1000, Greg Black wrote: >The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from >being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a >vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my >amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh >install). This doesn't tally with my experiences. I've had an amd64 laptop for most of the year and whilst I've got an i386 partition on it, I almost never use it. In my case, the only things I've missed are win32-codecs (which is unlikely to ever work on amd64) and the java plugin (and I can always use appletviewer if I really need to look at an applet). I've recently discovered that libffi isn't supported on amd64 but don't really need libffi. I agree there is some atrocious software around but things are vastly better than when I first wound up using a DEC Alpha in late 1998. (I'll also admit that I maintain some freeware software that is not 64-bit clean - but it started life on a PDP-11 and I've got more urgent issues to address in it). It would be nice to see the 32-bit emulation improved so that it is possible to build/run the i386 versions of ports on an amd64 system. This would be the best of both worlds. If I had any free time, I would even work on this myself. -- Peter Jeremy pgpmuXQVJO6OO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On 2006-10-31, Robert Blayzor wrote: > Greg Black wrote: > > Fair enough. In my defence, I'm fully committed at present and > > I have only one amd64 machine which I need for my real work. I > > can't afford to run it in amd64 mode, because so much of what I > > need is currently broken in a 64-bit world. That much of that > > broken software is interpreters and compilers for languages I > > use is a pretty sad reflection on people who should know a bit > > more about writing correct software, but that's got nothing to > > do with FreeBSD, except as a platform for running it on. > > I've checked all of the ports we really need and all of them don't seem > to have a problem being installed under amd64. I'm mostly interested in > running amd64 on higher end hardware that doesn't have an issue of > addressing 4GB or more of RAM. The PAE capability on i386 still seems > to be a bit experimental? Dunno about PAE on i386 (and don't much care). As it happens, my amd64 box is hardly higher end, but it has slots for 4GB and its doco claims that it can run with 4GB. However, to my great displeasure, I discovered after setting it up that both its BIOS and any OS I install see weird and obviously wrong amounts of memory if I install 4GB. The exact bad size varies, depending on various BIOS options, but ranges from 3.3GB up to 5.3GB (with various intermediate values, none of which is the correct 4GB). Updating the BIOS made no difference. Next time I buy a motherboard, I'll demand to see it run with the maximum memory it's supposed to handle before handing over my money. As it happens, I can do everything I need in 2GB, so I'm going to live with it. Greg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
Greg Black wrote: > Fair enough. In my defence, I'm fully committed at present and > I have only one amd64 machine which I need for my real work. I > can't afford to run it in amd64 mode, because so much of what I > need is currently broken in a 64-bit world. That much of that > broken software is interpreters and compilers for languages I > use is a pretty sad reflection on people who should know a bit > more about writing correct software, but that's got nothing to > do with FreeBSD, except as a platform for running it on. I've checked all of the ports we really need and all of them don't seem to have a problem being installed under amd64. I'm mostly interested in running amd64 on higher end hardware that doesn't have an issue of addressing 4GB or more of RAM. The PAE capability on i386 still seems to be a bit experimental? -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com) PGP: 0x66F90BFC @ http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 6296 F715 038B 44C1 2720 292A 8580 500E 66F9 0BFC telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On 2006-10-31, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:52:27AM +1000, Greg Black wrote: > > I found that a very large number of ports that mattered to me were marked > > i386 only. > > In some cases these designations are obsolete. They will require people- > power to work through them and see if they are overused. > > In particular, many of these ought to have logic to set BROKEN to say > "currently doesn't work on amd64" rather than *_FOR_ARCHS which indicates > "can't ever work on amd64". Even in some of those cases "currently doesn't > work" might be obsolete; it will take people with amd64 boxes running > native willing to test them and report back. Thanks for the extra information; that makes the situation much clearer. > Yes, this is going to take a great deal of hard work by many people. Indeed. And that's the point I was making in my original contribution to this thread which was begun by somebody seeking guidance on the process for migrating from i386 to amd64 mode. I only jumped in to point out that such a migration could lead to pain, because of the situation with the ports. That's going to be an issue for quite some time. One thing I failed to mention at the outset, and which bears mentioning now, is that FreeBSD-6.1 (and later) itself works just fine on amd64, and I have no concerns about that. In the case of my particular workload, the performance of my box is pretty much the same in either i386 mode or amd64 mode. That box shows up in dmesg as: CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ (2009.27-MHz 686-class CPU) real memory = 2147418112 (2047 MB) FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 2 CPUs > > I didn't look for PRs and didn't submit any. > > If everyone does that, then yes, the situation won't improve. Fair enough. In my defence, I'm fully committed at present and I have only one amd64 machine which I need for my real work. I can't afford to run it in amd64 mode, because so much of what I need is currently broken in a 64-bit world. That much of that broken software is interpreters and compilers for languages I use is a pretty sad reflection on people who should know a bit more about writing correct software, but that's got nothing to do with FreeBSD, except as a platform for running it on. Perhaps I'll have some more time available next year (by which time I hope to have completed my current projects), and then I might be able to drop out of my other free software commitments and have a look at helping out with some of the FreeBSD ports. But that's certainly a few months away. Greg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:52:27AM +1000, Greg Black wrote: > I found that a very large number of ports that mattered to me were marked > i386 only. In some cases these designations are obsolete. They will require people- power to work through them and see if they are overused. In particular, many of these ought to have logic to set BROKEN to say "currently doesn't work on amd64" rather than *_FOR_ARCHS which indicates "can't ever work on amd64". Even in some of those cases "currently doesn't work" might be obsolete; it will take people with amd64 boxes running native willing to test them and report back. Yes, this is going to take a great deal of hard work by many people. > I didn't look for PRs and didn't submit any. If everyone does that, then yes, the situation won't improve. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On 2006-10-31, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 2006-10-31, Robert Blayzor wrote: > > > > > Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 > > > machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure > > > to do so? > > > > Having just gone through the migration in the opposite > > direction, I would ask why you want to do this? > > > > The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from > > being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a > > vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my > > amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh > > install). > > > > I now have a machine that has almost every port I want working > > and that still gives me considerable performance improvements > > over the genuine Intel 32-bit boxes I have. > > > > I won't be trying another amd64 setup for at least a couple more > > years. > > Are there open PRs on this? We've not had any problems. Although > our amd64 deployment is still young, we have several machines humming > away happily. Where did you have problems, specifically? I didn't look for PRs and didn't submit any. I found that a very large number of ports that mattered to me were marked i386 only. You could get a count by searching the Makefiles in ports for: ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386 There are several hundred of them. Since the non-functionality of these ports on amd64 was already known, there seemed little point in adding to the noise by sending a PR. I did write a bit about this as part of a general rant on the woeful state of current software here: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/blog/software/discuss/software-quality.html Greg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:31:34PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from > > being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a > > vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my > > amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh > > install). > > Are there open PRs on this? We've not had any problems. Although > our amd64 deployment is still young, we have several machines humming > away happily. Where did you have problems, specifically? The state of the amd64 ports (and especially packages) lags the i386 ones, and I am trying to come up with some tools to quantify exactly how much and why. Travel and time constraints have prevented this being completed. (I wanted it done before 6.2, alas. OTOH, the package-upload-status stuff may be completed before EuroBSDCon: it's really close.) >From what I can surmise from data so far, the problems are: - linux emulation. This may have just been fixed. - certain ports have i386 binaries (can't be fixed) - certain ports have i386 asm code (can be fixed if there is fallback C code) - the "server" type ports are not in that bad a shape; the "desktop" ports certainly are But until people start a) using amd64 more heavily and b) giving us step-by-step feedback on the problems, we're going to be stuck in this undesireable place, where no one really wants to be. I'm not trying to be critical of the OP here, I really want to try to fix the problems and bring amd64 up as close to parity with i386 as feasible. So I am looking for volunteers and feedback. If the PRs are too slow-moving, I am willing to set up a page on a wiki where problems can be more quickly listed and maybe addressed. I'm open to any brainstorming ideas on how we can improve communication and collaboration here. mcl ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
In response to Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2006-10-31, Robert Blayzor wrote: > > > Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 > > machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure > > to do so? > > Having just gone through the migration in the opposite > direction, I would ask why you want to do this? > > The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from > being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a > vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my > amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh > install). > > I now have a machine that has almost every port I want working > and that still gives me considerable performance improvements > over the genuine Intel 32-bit boxes I have. > > I won't be trying another amd64 setup for at least a couple more > years. Are there open PRs on this? We've not had any problems. Although our amd64 deployment is still young, we have several machines humming away happily. Where did you have problems, specifically? -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On 2006-10-31, Robert Blayzor wrote: > Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 > machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure > to do so? Having just gone through the migration in the opposite direction, I would ask why you want to do this? The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh install). I now have a machine that has almost every port I want working and that still gives me considerable performance improvements over the genuine Intel 32-bit boxes I have. I won't be trying another amd64 setup for at least a couple more years. Greg ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:22:43AM -0600, Bruce Burden wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:41:44AM -0500, Robert Blayzor wrote: > > > > Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 > > machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure > > to do so? It has been covered on the amd64 list, IIRC. > There is a way to "upgrade" from i386 to amd64 on an installed >system, but it is strongly suggested that you not attempt to do >that. > > The advise I was given is to install from scratch, and know >happiness. Yeah, back up your data and config files and reinstall. And recompile your ports too, why bother switching to amd64 otherwise? Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgps7U79JEsBL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:41:44AM -0500, Robert Blayzor wrote: > > Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 > machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure > to do so? > There is a way to "upgrade" from i386 to amd64 on an installed system, but it is strongly suggested that you not attempt to do that. The advise I was given is to install from scratch, and know happiness. If you insist on fulfilling you masochistic desires, I believe /usr/src/UPDATING has a proceedure on doing so. Bruce -- "I like bad!" Bruce BurdenAustin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
6.x from i386 to amd64
Is there a way to upgrade/move an already installed i386 installed 6.1 machine to amd64 without completely reinstalling? Is there a procedure to do so? -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com) PGP: 0x66F90BFC @ http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 6296 F715 038B 44C1 2720 292A 8580 500E 66F9 0BFC A list is only as strong as its weakest link. - Don Knuth ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
