DragonFlyBSD

Please, give more information.
Have you ever booted x86_64 DragonFly on your laptop successfully? Is
your laptop 64-bit capable? Does FreeBSD/amd64 boot on it?
Does the BTX Halted message appear just when the menu is being shown or
just when the countdown reaches zero/you press enter and the kernel is
supposed to be loading?

Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.

Sorry.....

There's a change in FreeBSD's loader that detects processors that are
not 64-bit capable and prints an error message, instead of "BTX Halted".

elekktretterr@exemail.com.au wrote:
> Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
> this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
> assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.
>
> Sorry.....
>

Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something, perchance?

Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit extensions'
(mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.

My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).

Is DFLY that different?

Bill

Bill Hacker wrote:
> elekktretterr@exemail.com.au wrote:
>> Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
>> this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
>> assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.
>>
>> Sorry.....
>>
>
> Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
> perchance?
>
> Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
> extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.
>
> My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).
>
> Is DFLY that different?
>
> Bill

None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
(short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
(Core 2-based) were released).
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard
tgen@netphreax.net
tgen@deepbone.net

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
> Bill Hacker wrote:
>> elekktretterr@exemail.com.au wrote:
>>> Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
>>> this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and I had
>>> assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.
>>>
>>> Sorry.....
>>>
>> Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
>> perchance?
>>
>> Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
>> extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.
>>
>> My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).
>>
>> Is DFLY that different?
>>
>> Bill
>
> None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
> Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
> save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
> (short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
> (Core 2-based) were released).

ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core 2'
having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')

.. which is why I asked about the *number*. Though of course a dmesg would show
that ... so long as the booting stage got that far:

(aged Tyan
====
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz (3000.14-MHz K8-class CPU)
Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf62 Stepping = 2

Features=0xbfebfbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE>
Features2=0xe43d<SSE3,RSVD2,MON,DS_CPL,VMX,CNXT-ID,CX16,xTPR,PDCM>
AMD Features=0x20100800<SYSCALL,NX,LM>
AMD Features2=0x1<LAHF>
Cores per package: 2
====

Perhaps we should boot with an i32 image, detect what's there, throw a flag -
much as an OpenBSD insall selects an MP kernel (or not), and logs that action.
Doesn't need a lot of extra CD/DVD space ... or code.

I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM gets faster.

Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing lower
power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what Simon & Garfunkel
called 'the sounds of silence'.

;-)

Bill

Heh. As Jordan indicated, this is where improving the failure message
reduces the confusion.

-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>

For reference: http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?
view=revision&revision=183667 .
That's the commit that introduces the failure message about trying to run on
x86.

Cheers,
Alex Hornung

Bill Hacker wrote:
> Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
>> Bill Hacker wrote:
>>> elekktretterr@exemail.com.au wrote:
>>>> Well this is rather embarassing. This aint a 64bit processor. I bought
>>>> this thing like half a year after I bought my AMD64 workstation and
>>>> I had
>>>> assumed (Core Duo) would be 64 bit.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry.....
>>>>
>>> Odd, that. Just which specific CPU do you have? Mobility-something,
>>> perchance?
>>>
>>> Not only the Core-2, but the earlier Core-D had Intel's '64-bit
>>> extensions' (mostly) cross-licensed from AMD.
>>>
>>> My Core-D happily ran FreeBSD ADM64 (6.2 beta onward).
>>>
>>> Is DFLY that different?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> None of the Core Duo chips support EM64T. Are you perhaps confusing the
>> Pentium D with the Core Duo? Also, all Core Duo chips were mobile ones,
>> save for the Xeon ULV ("Sossaman"), which was for dual-socket servers
>> (short-lived though, as a couple of months later Woodcrest and friends
>> (Core 2-based) were released).
>
> ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
> 2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')

I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
that'd have been awful :).

> I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
> gets faster.

Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.

> Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
> lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
> Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.

What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
(sound-proofed) room? :P

Btw, your e-mail address bounces.
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard
tgen@netphreax.net
tgen@deepbone.net

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
> Bill Hacker wrote:

>> ACK 'marketing Nomenclature' - (the 'Core-D' / Pentium D eg - pre 'Core
>> 2' having been presented as meaning 'Core Duo')
>
> I've never seen the Pentium D marketed as "Core-D" around here though,
> that'd have been awful :).
>

T'was ever thus in Asia anyway..

Core-D (faster clock, 'fatter' lithography, hungry, slower FSB/RAM

is NE to

Core-2 (the reverse on all of the above)

>> I'll worry about all that when VIA Nano dualcore become common or ARM
>> gets faster.
>
> Haven't seen those Nano chips in the wild yet, unfortunately.
>

Dual-core, no. AFAIK, still a demo, if not 'lab' item.

Plenty of the solo's around in Netbooks and STB's though.

Wot the Hey - even the lowly C7 is a surprisingly good performer as a desktop.

All down to the hardware encryption engine and OpenSSL/SSH support for it. So
very much of what one does on a desktop uses encryption (ssh, scp, sftp, https,
esmtps(a), imaps, WiFi, rsync, VNC, remote X, remote desktop, distributed fs'en
.... etc) that the hardware crypto engine very handily offsets the
generally-slower-than-CHEAP Intel CPU.

OTOH - as a compiler box? ... NFW!

>> Meanwhile, after half a century of listening to fan noise, I'm chasing
>> lower power instead of raw speed and have come to rather enjoy what
>> Simon & Garfunkel called 'the sounds of silence'.
>
> What about a blindingly fast system, but running in another
> (sound-proofed) room? :P
>

BT,DT,GTTS. 'Challenging' with the pair of laptops I now Globetrot with, and -
limited by the uplinks - the speed is no longer of much consequence, as anything
at 1 GHz (G4) to 1.5 GHz (x86) is seldom loaded up.

> Btw, your e-mail address bounces.

Looking into that. Taking the headers from your post here, and ass-u-me-ing you
came off the same 'net from which you post to crater, I don't find any of the
three 'possible suspects' in my Exim logs as even attempting to attach recently.

From which IP did you originate the last leg toward conducive.net?

BTW - Sorry for the delay in responding - was enroute HKG USA on the 15th, then
distracted on arrival by need to deal with a water main leak and a snowstorm.