Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:17:02 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: mjacob@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <4580DE4E.3080008@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com> References: <200612140357.kBE3vY0Q053458@repoman.freebsd.org> <4580CD6A.5090802@samsco.org> <20061213201031.T26658@ns1.feral.com> <4580D3BB.7060504@samsco.org> <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
mjacob@freebsd.org wrote: > >> There wasn't a full switchover to SMP at 6.0 because an SMP kernel on a >> UP system incurs a measurable runtime overhead, and we wanted to present >> a system that showed the best of FreeBSD to people who wanted to run it > > But David's point is that most AMD64 boxes *are* SMP, not UP. Is that > wrong? 1. There are plenty of single core Opterons and Athlon64 chips still in service. Maybe AMD sells more SMP systems now than UP systems, but their prior sales of UP systems didn't magically disappear overnight. 2. The decision was made in spring of 2005, before dual core chips were widely used. While we knew that such chips would be available, we wanted to have consistency for the transition. 3. This change, had it not been reverted, would have broken the consistency in the major release stream that we were trying to achieve. You spell it 'POLA', I spell it 'consistent'. Either way, I think that we both have a deep concern and appreciation for doing the right thing and not pissing people off with surprises. 4. When 7.0 is released in 2007, the transition will be complete. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4580DE4E.3080008>