From owner-freebsd-smp Wed May 7 10:56:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA04614 for smp-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.vis.net.uk [194.207.134.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04606 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.vis.net.uk [194.207.134.1]) by bagpuss.visint.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA10332; Wed, 7 May 1997 19:06:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:06:41 +0100 (BST) From: Stephen Roome To: Steve Passe cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Where to start SMP? In-Reply-To: <199705071732.LAA04643@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-smp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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