From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 19 9:34:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from et-gw.etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42D537B42C for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:34:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by et-gw.etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12328; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:35:01 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:56:09 -0400 To: Rik van Riel From: Dennis Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Kris Kennaway , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:17 PM 04/18/2001, Rik van Riel wrote: >On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote: > > > >You think Intel isn't going to market dual/quad ia64 machines? > > > > Yes, but who'll need them? > >If nobody needed them, what would be the point in SELLING >them ? > >I know you don't trust our technical instinct, but you might >at least consider the business instinct of companies like >Intel, IBM or Unisys (who all sell big SMP systems). I didnt say they shouldnt support SMP, only that complicating the OS with highly SMP-specific code to make it slightly more efficient when 99% of users dont need it is a questionable endeavor. >And as for the "but you can wait 2 years until UP is faster than >today's SMP" doesn't quite work for eg. investment banking and >stock funds. More computing power means better calculations, which >means more money. And for folks like them, computing power is not >measured in FLOPS, but in ACRES. And when you're talking 3 acres >of computing power, you'd better have some decend density (ie. SMP >in 2U rackmounted boxes, or something similarly suitable). Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS significantly more complex, particularly when more computing power is always on the way. I understand there is a language thing, but I went out of my way to say that i wasnt saying that SMP shouldnt be supported. It already is, and its been done very cleanly in a way that doesnt compromise the integrity of the OS internals. DB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message