Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:24:13 +0100 From: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk> To: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: Price of FreeBSD (was On Holy Wars...) Message-ID: <335A18FD.36C2@wgold.demon.co.uk> References: <199704201132.HAA05697@jenolan.caipgeneral>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I disagree. Clearly the sources are there, but they are not normally compiled in. It is not the case that a uniprocessor is simply a particular case of an SMP configuration - the code is quite different, and the default build (and versions provided from eg Red Hat) do not have the code enabled. I'm well aware that the FreeBSD and Linux systems have SMP support if you care to try it out, but its not 'finished' in the way that SMP works out of the box with Solaris, NT, or UnixWare, for example, and as you say it is still somewhat 'work in progress'. (You give examples below, after all) From my point of view its not done yet, and until then, its not supported. Admitedly this isn't necessarily a common viewpoint in the Linux community, but I've not enough time to mess with version-of-the-week issues when I'm fighting to get functionality into my own products. James David S. Miller wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:29:08 +0100 > From: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk> > > There is an SMP kernel under development. As there is one for > Linux. But neither system has this as the core kernel line and > neither is finished or robust. > > Incorrect, in 2.0.x and even more so in 2.1.x SMP is fully supported > and in the sources for both the Sparc and Intel platform (Alpha coming > soon). The comment on robustness is pretty much correct although I > use it on all my development boxes, for 2.0.x Sparc SMP is much more > stable, for 2.1.x lately both Intel and Sparc are of similar > stability. We've threaded the heart of at least a few major > subsystems of the kernel already (scheduler, interrupts, drivers, and > wait queues), we are currently threading the vfs layer and next the > buffer/page caches and networking should come reasonably soon after > that. > > ---------------------------------------------//// > Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & //// > 199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s //// > ethernet. Beat that! //// > -----------------------------------------////__________ o > David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?335A18FD.36C2>