amd64 slower than i386 on identical AMD 64 system?

[Kris Kennaway]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:28:35PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:46, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > OK.  Just as a general point of common sense: when you find things
> > that aren't enabled by default, there's almost always a good reason
> > for this.
> >
> > Sometimes the reason is clear (driver conflicts with another driver,
> > etc), but for secret poorly-documented options that change kernel
> > behaviour it should ring warning bells that it might not be a good
> > idea to just set and forget.
> >
> 
> as well may exist good reason to check them out, if nobody checks this things 
> we never know about, right?

Yes, but the problem is that you didn't stop and file a bug report
when you learned of the problems (and then turn off the broken
option), but instead wrote an email in which you made the broad claim
that FreeBSD's SMP support was unstable.

> > polling that is really the fault of ULE.
> >
> 
> ok but I am not that stupid to try a prototype scheduler and then blaming it 
> for my mess
> 
> >
> > It really sounds like it could be a broken BIOS on your system (check
> > for upgrades).  AFAIK, dual-core systems are not known to have these
> > problems in general.
> >
> 
> well, that was my first thought too but makes no sense if the same happens on 
> several different brands,

Why not?  It is well-documented that many motherboards need BIOS
updates to work correctly with dual-core CPUs.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/attachments/20060315/7af203a3/attachment.pgp