Re: ABI for i386 binaries under FreeBSD-amd64
Roland Smith wrote: Than they should run i386. You only _need_ (as opposed to nice to play with :-) amd64 if you run out of address space on a typical workload. What if you have more than 3Gb of RAM to play with... would you have to use amd64 then? Steve :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ABI for i386 binaries under FreeBSD-amd64
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:27:32AM +, Stephen Allen wrote: Roland Smith wrote: Than they should run i386. You only _need_ (as opposed to nice to play with :-) amd64 if you run out of address space on a typical workload. What if you have more than 3Gb of RAM to play with... would you have to use amd64 then? You could use PAE (Physical Address Extensions) on i386. That gives the CPU access to 64 GB. But that does not mean all that address space is available for programs. It does not influence the standard limits on process sizes though. See /sys/arch/include/vmparam.h and /sys/conf/NOTES. 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) pgp7JqDPsxdAW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ABI for i386 binaries under FreeBSD-amd64
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +0200, David Naylor wrote: Hi, I have seen that recently on the mailing list there has been a discussion on running i386 FreeBSD binaries under an amd64 system. As far as I have been able to read there does not appear to be anyway of achieving this except though either a chroot/jail or vitalization. I think this is a short fall of FreeBSD currently as there are still proprietary i386 programs for FreeBSD that people may want to use under FreeBSD. Than they should run i386. You only _need_ (as opposed to nice to play with :-) amd64 if you run out of address space on a typical workload. And it's not a given that amd64 will be faster than i386. It depends on the workload. If your workload is IO-bound (i.e. constantly waiting for the disk to finish reading/writing) the CPU doesn't really matter. 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) pgpBrNf9QlGRi.pgp Description: PGP signature
