From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Apr 12 19:36:17 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from corinth.bossig.com (mail.dohboys.com [208.26.253.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E037637BA8D for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:36:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kstewart@3-cities.com) Received: from 3-cities.com (unverified [208.26.242.115]) by corinth.bossig.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:46:33 -0700 Message-ID: <38F53252.978FEB4D@3-cities.com> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:34:58 -0700 From: Kent Stewart Organization: Columbia Basin Virtual Community Project X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Reynolds~ Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP with dual-boot (win98) question References: <14580.51371.762330.305509@hip186.ch.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG John Reynolds~ wrote: > > Hello all, > > I searched the archives to try and answer this, but came up dry. I've got an > ASUS P2B-DS motherboard with 1 processor in there now. I'm currently in the > process of purchasing a second processor so that I can experiment with the > SMP features of 4.0 (not that 3.x didn't have SMP ... I am just on 4.0 now ;). > > However, I've got to keep Win98 around on another disk for the wife so she > can boot into it for certain apps. The question I have is: does anybody > currently have this configuration, i.e. two processors with SMP kernel but > dual boot into win98? Will win98 happily "ignore" the second processor and run > "normally," or will having the second one there confuse it? Nope! Win98 doesn't speak SMP and will never see it. I ran Win98 on a dual cpu machine and never had any problems. Of the systems I use, only FreeBSD and NT ever saw the 2nd cpu. Kent > > I've never messed with SMP machines before but I assume that during the boot > process the kernel running on CPU0 has to initiate the second CPU to start > running. So, my theory is that win98 will happily ignore the second CPU > sitting there. True? > > Thanks, > > -Jr > > -- > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > | John Reynolds WCCG, CCE, Higher Levels of Abstraction | > | Intel Corporation MS: CH6-210 Phone: 480-554-9092 pgr: 602-868-6512 | > | jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com http://www-aec.ch.intel.com/~jreynold/ | > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kstewart@3-cities.com http://www.3-cities.com/~kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ SETI(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) @ HOME http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message