Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... > >On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in >> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few >> months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement >> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & >> settings set is pretty identical also... >> >> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always >> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is >> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). >> >> Steve Hi! Are you sure kqemu is even used? (in the monitor do: info kqemu) Quoting ports/emulators/qemu/pkg-message: - also remember that on amd64 you need to run the amd64 (x86_64) system emulation if you want to use kqemu, i.e. run qemu-system-x86_64 instead of qemu (the latter only emulates a 32 bit system.) [...] Note however that this is no longer true with the qemu-devel port, so if you are using that also the 32 bit `qemu' can use kqemu. And finally, for anyone wanting to test out more recent qemu svn snapshots, you should check -emulation, I have just prepared another experimental qemu-devel port update: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2008-November/005526.html HTH, Juergen PS: No I'm still not on -questions, so please Cc me if you want to make sure I see followups. (I was just testing out accessing it via gmane and looked for recent posts about qemu...) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:08:51 -0700 "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... > > > > If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have > > to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution... > > Yes, but isn't that the same for win2k regardless of wether the host > is fbsdamd64 or fbsdi386? Or are you talking 64 vs. 32 bit? As I understand it, the performance advantage of kqemu over ordinary qemu, comes from running many of the instructions in the emulation directly on the host cpu. An amd64 compatible processor can't run 32-bit code in 64-bit mode and vice-versa, so it's either doing some emulation or switching back and forth between 32/64-bit modes. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?
> "Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... > > If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have > to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution... Yes, but isn't that the same for win2k regardless of wether the host is fbsdamd64 or fbsdi386? Or are you talking 64 vs. 32 bit? > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in >>> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few >>> months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement >>> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & >>> settings set is pretty identical also... >>> >>> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always >>> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is >>> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). >>> >>> Steve >>> >> ___ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> > > -- > Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area >http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?
"Steve Franks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... If the target isn't the same as the host, I think it's going to have to use (at least partial) emulation instead of direct execution... > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in >> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few >> months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement >> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & >> settings set is pretty identical also... >> >> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always >> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is >> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). >> >> Steve >> > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?
Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k... On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in > the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few > months, so it's pretty close. Also, the i386 is a direct replacement > of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software & > settings set is pretty identical also... > > kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always > over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is > often in the 30% range, instead of 60%). > > Steve > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
