Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:59:40 -0600 (CST)
From:      Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com>
To:        tom@uniserve.com (Tom)
Cc:        asami@cs.berkeley.edu, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, grog@lemis.com, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: 3.0 -release ?
Message-ID:  <199712040059.SAA04570@home.dragondata.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971203162833.19105C-100000@shell.uniserve.com> from Tom at "Dec 3, 97 04:36:04 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 
> On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Kevin Day wrote:
> 
> > on a production system. I needed SMP support, and couldn't wait, and didn't
> ...
> > A -current machine is handling www.mk4.com (2,000,000+ hits per month),
> > several shell accounts, and other heavy uses. (and it's running rc564 in the
> 
>   Did you need SMP support because you needed it for your particular
> hardware, or did you need SMP because uni-processor hardware isn't fast
> enough?

We already had SMP hardware, and it was a waste not to use it.

> 
>   2 million hits a month is peanuts these days.  I have a UP system that
> takes 30 million a month, plus a million e-mails, and it is barely at 50%
> utilization.
> 
>   I'd prefer getting multiple servers than run a risky SMP release on a
> single server.

We are adding a lot of interactive cgi's that are heavy on large databases.
Doing that over NFS would be a pain, and keeping seperate copies would also
be a headache. It's now on a Dual P/200. I realize a PII could probably out
do it now, but they weren't out when we bought the machine, we were planning
on using NT at the time. (not my idea)

We initially had it on a P/100 which was outgrown quickly. Then a P/200,
which also got sluggish. It couldn't keep up when there was a lot of
database activity going in. We ended up taking it all out, because it caused
too much trouble, and now have a somewhat boring site. :)

We do use multiple servers for many things. I prefer to keep one task on one
machine though. 

Also, for shell accounts, a dual or quad proc machine is truely best. A
cluster of machines is nice for shell users, but one huge machine tends to
be easier to maintain. Having multiple processors also helps to assure that
if someone's eggdrop freaks out, it doesn't bring everyone totally down. (I
know that's treating a software problem with hardware, and we do have a
cron'ed job that checks for user owned processes taking too much cpu)

I am totally impressed with the stability and speed of my SMP kernel at this
stage. I know there is a lot left you guys want to do, but for me I am
statisfied at this point. I know others would benefit from what's done now
too, if we can get the last few quirks fixed. *cough* NFS *cough* :)

An interim SMP compatible kernel release would be *great*. I don't know how
that fits in the grand scheme of things, but from an outsiders view it would
help. :)

> 
>   And no, 2.2 is not getting old yet.  Remember most 24x7 sites only do
> upgrades twice a year (or less), and 2.2.5 hasn't been out that long.
> 
> Tom

True. :)

Kevin




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712040059.SAA04570>