Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>