Pros and Cons of amd64 (versus i386).

[Chris H.]

Quoting Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au>:

> On Sat, 2006-Apr-08 20:41:36 +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> PJ> Backup your amd64 environment and install i386.  You can re-install
>> PJ> the amd64 once the testing is finished.  The best benchmark is always
>> PJ> your own application.
>>
>> Or, even better, use spare disk or at least spare slice.  Having fresh good
>> backup never hurts though ;-)
>
> Note that using different slices may change your results.  All modern
> disks are faster near the outside (start of the disk) then the inside
> (I get more than 50% increase from inside to outside on one system).

My experience(s) seem to indicate the center of the platter results in
a quicker hit rate. But none the less; this still only further confirms
your point about the different areas of the platter(s) returning different
results. It might also be worth noting that the large onboard disk caches
that come on most modern hard drives will *also* likely help skew the results.

--Chris H.

>
> A second disk is OK as long as it's the same type of disk running at
> the same transfer rate.
>
> --
> Peter Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 
Linux is not,
nor never will be, UNIX.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p12 (SMP - 900x2) Tue Mar 7 19:37:23 PST 2006
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////