From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Apr 28 14:41:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E97C15505 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca [204.244.186.218] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #4) id 10cc4Y-00059f-00; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:40:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Mike Meyer Cc: Matthew Reimer , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC pthreads before 3.2 is released? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Mike Meyer wrote: > I've been meaning to ask about something related to this. > > I've got a box that's doing some light services - apache, PostgreSQL, > Perforce;, running the distributed.net code (and if you're not a > member of team FreeBSD, you should be), and playing workstation. > > Some comments on the PostgreSQL list make me think that adding a > second processor wouldn't be that much of a benefit, as the locking in > the -STABLE branch increases the contention. It doesn't really depend on postgresql at all. If your process mix is cpu intensive, you will get a benefit. If your process mix is kernel/syscall intensive, then you won't get much benefit as only one process can be active in the kernel at a time. Now, are your postgresql processes cpu or kernel intensive? Depends on what you do. > Anyone got advice on this? > > Thanx, >