From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 21:13:18 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 5D64FAA for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from atomic.burgh.net (atomic.burgh.net [209.114.176.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDAD2368 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (pool-71-182-129-12.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [71.182.129.12]) by atomic.burgh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CB8F421BC1 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <539621EB.5020301@burghcom.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:06:51 -0400 From: Jeff Love User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but ... References: <5394A848.7030609@m5p.com> <20140609192217.GA69813@ozzmosis.com> In-Reply-To: X-burghcom-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-burghcom-MailScanner-ID: CB8F421BC1.AC18A X-burghcom-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-burghcom-MailScanner-From: jl@burghcom.com X-Spam-Status: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 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 21:13:18 -0000 On 06/09/2014 04:09 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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 > Those of us with some history running *BSD remember how long we waited for SMP in OpenBSD. -- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.