Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:20:53 +0100 From: David Landgren <david@landgren.net> To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 Message-ID: <437124C5.7050008@landgren.net> In-Reply-To: <43711067.2010500@elischer.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> <43711067.2010500@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
And Julian Elischer did write: > David Landgren wrote: > >> And Kris Kennaway did write: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: >>> >>>> Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >>>> >> >> [...] >> >>>> I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT >>>> while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with >>>> more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to >>>> time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, >>> which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, >>> even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS >>> is under Giant. >> >> >> >> Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 >> with 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. > > > > do some benchmarks before and after :-) Ah... wise words. I'll try a couple of things out then. Thanks, David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?437124C5.7050008>