Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:09:41 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Message-ID: <20010418160941.X976@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418174822.03b13910@mail.etinc.com>; from dennis@etinc.com on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 06:25:25PM -0400 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418131202.03d0a280@mail.etinc.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104181412260.17635-100000@duckman.distro.co <5.0.2.1.0.20010418131202.03d0a280@mail.etinc.com> <20010418111523.B35813@xor.obsecurity.org> <5.0.2.1.0.20010418174822.03b13910@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> [010418 16:04] wrote: > At 02:15 PM 04/18/2001, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 01:17:03PM -0400, Dennis wrote: > > > At 01:12 PM 04/18/2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > >better back out SMPng real fast, otherwise you'll get into a > > > >flamewar with Dennis again ;) > > > > > > I just fear that "ng" will have the same negative connotations that > > "NT" did. > > > >Feel free to test it and contribute your bug reports to the > >developers. We make -current available for this reason, you know.. > > > >Kris > > No thanks. I treasure these tranquil days without endless race conditions, > lockups and undebuggable code. I see that the more stressful days approach. > > I'll stick with single processor and count on my buddies at intel to raise > the bar by 75% every year without having to introduce the instability that > SMPng will undoubted suffer with for long periods. > > A 1.5Ghz processor can outperform 2 fully saturated PCI buses, so its not > going to help much in the networking world, which is where I live. > Processing power is already exceeding the busses capabilities. > > Its nice to have a processor for user space and one for kernel/interrupt > space, but going beyond that to seriously adulterate the OS to squeeze a > few extra cycles in a world where processors are jumping 20% in speed every > few months seems counterproductive. You dont put 2 engines in a car to make > it faster, you get a faster engine. > > It seems that there is a lack of foresight here...you're losing a year or > more of engineering time and before SMPng is stablilized the IA-64 will be > out and most multiprocessor applications will be rushing to move over to that. I know that engaging you in conversation is a futile exercise but I'd like to point out that we've got our feet in both boats right now as well as some others that you don't mention. Ia64 is nearly working, we are taking the platform quite seriously. You think Intel isn't going to market dual/quad ia64 machines? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010418160941.X976>