Upgrading to amd64 requires recompilation of ports?

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Sun Jun 17 10:57:32 UTC 2007

On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0400, Indigo 23 wrote:
> >  Does anyone think that its worth the hassle? If you do manage to get
> >  it up and running, will you see any noticeable advantages or is it
> >  better to just stick with i386? The only caveat that I can see is a
> >  recompilation of all the ports.  Any thoughts?
> You don't really _need_ it unless you've got more than four gigs of RAM
> and are routinely running out of memory on i386. Then again, I installed
> amd64 instead of i386 because I could. :-) No regrets so far.

s/'ve got more than four gigs of RAM and//.  Regardless of amount of
RAM, lack of virtual address space on i386 is crippling for certain
uses, for example ZFS.

> Some stuff like binary drivers, flash player, is not available on
> amd64 (not necessarily a bad thing :-). I think i386 has more ports
> available as packages.
> Amd 64 will use some more disk space and RAM.

Certain CPU-intensive applications will be faster when compiled for
amd64 (because of e.g. more registers being available).  Other
applications may be slower because of increased time required to copy
64-bit pointers compared to 32-bit.  There are other architectural
differences (e.g. 4 levels of page tables) that may also cause
different performance characteristics, plus and minus.

It all depends on your workload, so you have to test it and see.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list