Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:18:54 -0700 (MST) From: FreeBSD user <freebsd@XtremeDev.com> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com> Cc: Mark Hughes <mh_lists@digitalspy.co.uk>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multi-processor Support Message-ID: <20011106151603.Y9464-100000@Amber.XtremeDev.com> In-Reply-To: <001f01c166ad$5ac379a0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Mark writes: > > > Think of it this way - most systems in use with > > FreeBSD right now, I would imagine, have only one > > processor, so does it make sense to clutter the > > generic kernel with code that most systems won't > > use? With a source-provided OS, there's no need > > to do that. > > Recompiling the OS to make configuration changes is rather dated for most > systems. The problem with rebuilding the OS is that, if you make any mistakes, > you may not be able to boot the system at all, and this risk is generally enough > to outweigh any insignificant savings in run-time resource consumption incurred > by excluding a few snippets of code. This is why so much is done with > configuration files and runtime parameters these days. Individual application > systems are rarely rebuilt to make configuration changes for the same reasons. > True. IF SMP support can be done as a runtime option. Which is what you are assuming it is. If it indeed can be made as a runtime option, I suspect it will take a great many man hours. But until then, it'll probably remain a compile time option. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011106151603.Y9464-100000>