From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 6 2:25:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from atkielski.com (atkielski.com [161.58.232.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A6537B418 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 02:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from contactdish (ASt-Lambert-101-2-1-14.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.59.14]) by atkielski.com (8.11.6) id fA6AOrW16611; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:24:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001f01c166ad$5ac379a0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> From: "Anthony Atkielski" To: "Mark Hughes" , "FreeBSD Questions" References: Subject: Re: Multi-processor Support Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 11:25:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 5 X-MSMail-Priority: Low X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mark writes: > Think of it this way - most systems in use with > FreeBSD right now, I would imagine, have only one > processor, so does it make sense to clutter the > generic kernel with code that most systems won't > use? With a source-provided OS, there's no need > to do that. Recompiling the OS to make configuration changes is rather dated for most systems. The problem with rebuilding the OS is that, if you make any mistakes, you may not be able to boot the system at all, and this risk is generally enough to outweigh any insignificant savings in run-time resource consumption incurred by excluding a few snippets of code. This is why so much is done with configuration files and runtime parameters these days. Individual application systems are rarely rebuilt to make configuration changes for the same reasons. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message