Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:04:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom <danial_thom@yahoo.com> To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail on FreeBSD ... ? Message-ID: <20060713180418.50118.qmail@web33311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <27EB8D93-6563-4521-AD7C-16FD06B47BED@shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> wrote: > > 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 I doubt you have the capacity to understand the tests, and as they say, you can't educate the woodchucks. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060713180418.50118.qmail>