Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:34:55 -0700 From: "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jgowdy@home.com> To: "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br>, "Dennis" <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net>, "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Message-ID: <007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8@sherline.net> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Are you high ? What are you smoking ? There are MANY people that use SMP, and for some of us, SMP is the choice factor between FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I find Linux SMP vs Win2k SMP vs FreeBSD SMP to be an important subject in enterprise class servers. > 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. Much of the code is being simplified and cleaned up. And it's not a "few extra cycles". 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?007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8>