--- 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
-
From: Nick Pavlica [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Boris Spirialitious [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:05:59 -0700
Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386 on FreeBSD 5.4-pre
Hi Boris,
I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet
of this propaganda. The cluelessness in the performance
list is a good indication.
-Original Message-
From: jason henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:57:58 -0500
Subject: Re: AMD64 much slower than i386
-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
-pre
-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
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
--- 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.
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
--- 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
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
[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
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
Hi Boris,
I haven't had an opportunity to work with any AMD64 hardware yet,
but have had good results with 5.4.? on i686. I can relate to your
frustration, but can say that I was able to greatly improve 5.x
performance with some effort. For example I went from a maximum
sustained disk write of
[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.
14 matches
Mail list logo
