Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:56:39 -0600 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <27EB8D93-6563-4521-AD7C-16FD06B47BED@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <20060713164723.72788.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060713164723.72788.qmail@web33304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Danial Thom wrote: > > > --- "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. > SMP has overhead but FreeBSD on 2 processors can do more work than FreeBSD on the same HW with just 1 processor. That is a fact. > Are you people stupid or delusional? No, and the data you posted did not support your allegations of performance either. Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?27EB8D93-6563-4521-AD7C-16FD06B47BED>