From owner-freebsd-current Wed Dec 3 17:00:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA29491 for current-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from home.dragondata.com (toasty@home.dragondata.com [204.137.237.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29454; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:59:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toasty@home.dragondata.com) Received: (from toasty@localhost) by home.dragondata.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA04570; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:59:40 -0600 (CST) From: Kevin Day Message-Id: <199712040059.SAA04570@home.dragondata.com> Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? In-Reply-To: from Tom at "Dec 3, 97 04:36:04 pm" To: tom@uniserve.com (Tom) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:59:40 -0600 (CST) Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, grog@lemis.com, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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