From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 24 12:44:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8661E37BD6C for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:44:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from localhost (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA76156; Wed, 24 May 2000 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Chuck Paterson Cc: Matthew Dillon , "Daniel C. Sobral" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 May 2000 11:28:39 MDT." <200005241728.LAA07094@berserker.bsdi.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:46:43 -0700 Message-ID: <76153.959197603@localhost> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > This is actually not true (the nobody part). I'm afraid I have no > idea how to do a preemptive kernel where it doesn't diverge so > greatly that it won't be effectively a totally separate kernel. I > think if FreeBSD is not willing to bite the bullet on going to the > preemptive kernel then it just shouldn't get done. Well, I think we can still have our cake and eat it too. I agree that the 386/486 markets need to keep being supported since FreeBSD frequently gets used at 3am "on the sly" by many techs who grab an old box out of the junk room closet and deploy some service on it before the boss notices. A 486 box still makes a fine low-speed router or mail server for a small to midsize company (or small to midsize group within a big company). It's also the case that the 386/486 parts have just recently passed through the DoD's long acceptance trial process and are now available in radiation hardened packaging for use in satellites and other hostile environments, so we don't want to turn our backs on that market just yet. This simply means that we will need to start generating another kernel for such situations, something we currently need to do for SMP systems in any case and should probably just add as an option in the installer. There's also your option #2 to consider, that being to take the performance hit for now and get past the point where the 386/486 CPUs remain relevant at all. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message