Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:11:17 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> Cc: smp@csn.net (Steve Passe), FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? Message-ID: <199712040711.XAA18655@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 04 Dec 1997 08:00:58 %2B0200." <199712040600.IAA19642@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za>
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? Actually, there is, sort of. The problem is that a large number of people will be evaluating FreeBSD/SMP when it is released, and if the performance sucks, this is what magazine reviewers will say and is what people will remember. It's too important of a feature to have working poorly in the first release. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712040711.XAA18655>