From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 19 10:34:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dualcpus.com (dualcpus.com [65.160.20.195]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DC4A37B424 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:34:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgowdy@home.com) Received: (qmail 51953 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 17:34:55 -0000 Received: from sherline.cts.com (HELO server2) (204.216.163.132) by dualcpus.com with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 17:34:55 -0000 Message-ID: <007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8@sherline.net> From: "Jeremiah Gowdy" To: "Rik van Riel" , "Dennis" Cc: "Alfred Perlstein" , "Kris Kennaway" , References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com> Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:34:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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