Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:00:58 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> To: smp@csn.net (Steve Passe) Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? Message-ID: <199712040600.IAA19642@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <199712040132.SAA10469@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> from Steve Passe at "Dec 3, 97 06:32:07 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Perhaps I overstated the issue, I get up times of many weeks on my dual P6 > here that is used as a development system. Obviously many others are also > using SMP for real work. But the efficiency just isn't there yet. We > would bench very poorly against a good SMP system, and thats what needs > improvement b4 we go prime-time with SMP. What about smaller steps? Stabilize the current SMP code and make a release with it (3.0) and then put the next stuff (threaded kernel, removal of the single kernel lock, etc.) in a next release. That way we have shorter release cycles and more people can get exposed to the new features that is currently in -current. I mean, there is nothing that say our first SMP release should be the ultimate one, is there? And the -current SMP code (minus a little bug here and there maybe :-)) is already very usefull to people with processor intensive apps. (It made a huge difference on the ZA-UNINET news router/web proxy machines, which has been running it for 6+ months now.) Well just a thought. PS. It does seem that we find most of our bugs just after a release, so in that sense it would also be good to have shorter release cycles. :-))) John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712040600.IAA19642>