From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 14:35:55 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0459516A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:35:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from f30.mail.ru (f30.mail.ru [194.67.57.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B2B43D46 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:35:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from _pppp@mail.ru) Received: from mail by f30.mail.ru with local id 1CzFQ9-000DPQ-00 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:35:53 +0300 Received: from [81.200.13.122] by win.mail.ru with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:35:53 +0300 From: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [81.200.13.122] Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:35:53 +0300 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Subject: Re[5]: interrupt routing -- moving to acpi@ X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:35:55 -0000 Thanks to all who tried to help. I decided to move the discussion to acpi@ > >>> Ah, so they are all on the same bus. Yuck, performance is going to be > >>> sucky. Bad Tyan, no cookie. That'll also explain the limited number of > >>> interrupts available. I don't think there's anything we can do to help > >>> the situation, sadly. > >> I cannot affect the company equipment purchase policy either :/ > >> 2 more servers on Tyan motherboards perform pretty bad also. > > Well this IS PC hardware we're talkinga bout here. :) > > > > If you can show that some other OS is able to confgiure an alternate > > interrupt then it might just be something up with ACPI. > I actually want the NICs and SCSI controllers run in different kernel threads. > I have found a year-old discussion on -current > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-January/019964.html > about assigning physical IRQ lines to PCI devices; > so I wanted to know if there is a way to force ACPI assign virtual interrupts a similar way. > I hope I would have some vacant time this weekend to dig in the ACPI code a bit; I think it is not natural to assign a virtual IRQ for 2 devices if there are a plenty of free lines left... > > >> Well, I dont experience any problems with the base system (the server > >> has 4G of physical RAM btw). The ports collection isnt amd64-ready > >> though. I compiled some ports patching their makefiles but some of them > >> dont compile at all. Say, I failed to build vnc server from ports (I > >> needed it to install Oracle) the only one I managed to build was an > >> ancient realvnc (3.3.7), but I couldnt connect to it. I tried to compile > >> realvnc 4.x from sources but ran into namespace issues (they were > >> discussed on another thread here regarding some software package; seems > >> to be a buggy gcc). So, Ive given up and happily installed an i386 > >> version. > > Well, thats not a failing of the ports system itself :-) Did you report > > your problems to the port maintainers? > Some of them before I have given up... > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >