kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?

[Steve Franks]

> "Steve Franks" <stevefranks at ieee.org> 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 <stevefranks at ieee.org> 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 at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
> --
> Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area
>                http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
>