Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:06:41 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Where to start SMP? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970507185110.6423P-100000@bagpuss.visint.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199705071732.LAA04643@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Steve Passe wrote: > Hi, > > >Maybe, but surely some of the changes to run an efficient SMP system > >should come at kernel compile level. Unless FreeBSD moves to a modular > >system on the scale of something like HURD this looks likely to decrease > >performance. > > my rule is that when the choice is between "works faster/better" and > "more convient", "faster/better" wins. I don't always win the "discussions" > where we make the final decision, but I'll always fight for that position. I hope your not trying to make money out of this, I'd be worried you meant: faster to write and better for my wallet =) *duck* I guess you'd be for the other (sensible) option.. I don't profess to know which is faster/better I just wouldn't want to see SMP get bastardised into some weird runtime option you can turn on and off really easily. I don't think that's going to be a performance boost ? -- Steve Roome Technical Systems Meddler, Vision Idiotic Ltd. E: steve@visint.co.uk M: +44 (0) 976 241 342 T: +44 (0) 117 973 0597 F: +44 (0) 117 923 8522
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970507185110.6423P-100000>