From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 13 16:47:25 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E1716A4DA
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:47:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com)
Received: from web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com
	[68.142.206.119])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B5C143D49
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:47:24 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com)
Received: (qmail 72790 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jul 2006 16:47:23 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=KIM9CpKNbKYCqWmRZxYvNV1TfC8wYBeIAD1xaIWGx8Eo2v5ZfUUxCA/JS8/m3zgFpWogPHo3m3SaxZ5FN9Qwe6xEGCvcxQQlSV7zTjmTLbpKlqfk724ANf2HhiU5cQ+bNo1BraNMRKUpu4BHIu7PMa3Nu7a2g6Q5iff4dmkH3xU=
	; 
Message-ID: <20060713164723.72788.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com>
To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net>
In-Reply-To: <389A6BC7-4CD5-4390-8EAE-A1528C9AFA36@shire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:47:25 -0000



--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC"
<chad@shire.net> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> > Simply enabling SMP on a single processor
> system
> > adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again,
> > readily admitted/accepted by the developers.
> > There is no way to recover that in
> efficiency, at
> > least not for a long time.
> 
> So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. 
> Easy enough to avoid.
> 
> Chad

Don't use SMP, because the overhead stays with 2
processors, with little additional benefit (as
other tests show). Easy enough to avoid.

Are you people stupid or delusional?

DT

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com