From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jul 14 16:08:20 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA20423
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (Ilsa.StevesCafe.com [205.168.119.129])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA20344;
          Mon, 14 Jul 1997 16:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by Ilsa.StevesCafe.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01584;
	Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:05:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199707142305.RAA01584@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>
To: BRiGHTMN <brightmn@a-v25.rh.sunyit.edu>
cc: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: interrupt latency 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:44:25 -0000."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970626184310.5426D-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:05:43 -0600
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

---
> dedicate a 600+$ CPU only to interupt control?

this is STRICTLY for purposes of testing algorithms, NOT for normal use.

---
> doesn't sound very cost effective, that would mean a 2 CPU machine would
> almost "loose" a CPU...

thats why I said a 4 CPU board would be necessary for this testing method
--
Steve Passe	| powered by
smp@csn.net	|            Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD