Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:38:49 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> To: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP, 4GB RAM, 4x CPU Message-ID: <19990621113849.A266@mad> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906201414380.28322-100000@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de>; from O. Hartmann on Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 02:34:47PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906201414380.28322-100000@ipamzlx.physik.uni-mainz.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 02:34:47PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: > > Again, and again, I see so many unreflecting "performance tests" made by > simply compiling the system. No, no, no. Well, listen to this: some guy The only accurate performance test is reality. > My question is, hopefuly, simple: I need objective and true informations about > how "ggod" the SMP implementation of FreeBSD 3.2 is, how "stable" and usable > the system is for usage with 4x CPU (Xeon) and 4GB RAM. We have some offers ftp.cdrom.com runs FreeBSD on a Xeon/500 with 4GB ram. They have no stability problems. Obviously, they don't run fortran programs, but you shouldn't experience stability problems. I'm not sure if ftp.cdrom.com has >1 cpu, though. You shouldn't experience problems running Linux applications on FreeBSD. Linux isn't really "emulated" in the sense that applications need to be translated before being executed, but rather we just use a different set of syscall mappings for Linux programs as well as a port that installs the necessary parts of userland Linux. If Linux programs are noticeably slower due to being emulated, then that is a bug. -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990621113849.A266>