From owner-freebsd-smp Wed Nov 1 10:39:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8F037B4C5 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:39:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA596598; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:39:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200010310548.WAA25053@usr02.primenet.com> References: <200010310548.WAA25053@usr02.primenet.com> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:39:46 -0500 To: Terry Lambert , drony@spray.se From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: HLT Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 5:48 AM +0000 10/31/00, Terry Lambert wrote: >I think the real question is why, under normal operating >conditions, should overheating be a problem for you? While that is a good question, there's another question that comes to my mind. If my dual-processor system will have close-to-nothing to do all night while I'm out of the office, then why should I have both CPU's running at full-bore? What is the advantage of burning up the extra electricity and generating the extra heat, when there's going to be nothing to do for several hours? I agree that a person should not have to depend on HLT behavior to avoid overheating, but it would be nice if a basically-idle multi-processor machine would use less energy. -- --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message