From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 19 22:31: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cygnus.rush.net (cygnus.rush.net [209.45.245.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78D214C83 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:30:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@rush.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by cygnus.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA05530; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:55:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 00:55:55 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Nick Popoff Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP Question In-Reply-To: <000701bea278$cf79e500$0d42060a@rust.bloodletting.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 19 May 1999, Nick Popoff wrote: this should really be on smp@freebsd.org? > I'm exploring hardware setups for FreeBSD and I'm curious how SMP is > coming. What is the consensus on its stability at this point, and how > far is it from loosing its 'beta' classification? Also, anyone running > FreeBSD on a Xeon processor? I'm trying to figure out the best way to > max FreeBSD's performance, and what gives a good return for the money. > Any advice appreciated! My company deals almost entirely with dual PII freebsd servers, ram configurations vary from 256-1024 megabytes of ram. In the last month we haven't had any failures except for hardware/power issues. The machines perform admirably. My home box a dual 400 with 256 ram gets pummelled constantly with large software builds and remains stable as a rock. Just remember, ram is important, don't get a dual box with 128 ram or we'll laugh at you, go for a more heavyweight 512, or even 256 if it stresses your budget (ram is getting so damn cheap anyhow) good luck, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message