From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 20:09:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5274CF31 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.netplex.net", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1289C2D58 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.9/8.14.9/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id s59K93xj052632; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:09:03 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]); Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:09:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net Reply-To: Daniel Eischen To: andrew clarke Subject: Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but ... In-Reply-To: <20140609192217.GA69813@ozzmosis.com> Message-ID: References: <5394A848.7030609@m5p.com> <20140609192217.GA69813@ozzmosis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: George Mitchell , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Andreas Nilsson X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:09:11 -0000 On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, andrew clarke wrote: > On Sun 2014-06-08 20:58:36 UTC+0200, Andreas Nilsson (andrnils@gmail.com) wrote: > >>> The party line seems to be, "Well, everybody knows SCHED_ULE sucks >>> on uniprocessors." Hello? Not everybody has upgraded to multiple >>> core or hyperthreaded processors yet. Do we really want to write >>> off every uniprocessor piece of hardware out here? >>> >> Yes? Can you even buy a system today that is uniprocessor? My phone is >> a dual core thing, and it got written of because of its "meagre" >> hardware. Top of the line phones has 8 cores. So, seriously, what >> non-ancient system have you acquired that is uniprocessor? Please >> include links for available hardware for laptops, desktops or servers. > > Don't discount virtual machines, where a FreeBSD guest OS might be > configured to use only one of the host system's CPUs. People are also using FreeBSD on small embedded systems, both x86 and non-x86 based. All the world is not a multiprocessor x86 system. http://www.diamondsystems.com/products/sbcs.php -- DE