Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:17:05 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: black@zen.cypher.net (Ben Black) Cc: kory@avatar.com, brownie@earthling.net, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quad Pro 150 motherboard? Message-ID: <199704281717.KAA02093@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970427223723.32065L-100000@zen.cypher.net> from "Ben Black" at Apr 27, 97 10:40:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> and the point is that quad CPU boards are expensive because the demand > for them as anything but servers (and as servers too, really) IS ALMOST > NONEXISTENT. look at all the extra costs of going from 2 to 4 CPUs on a > board: you can't fit all 4 on the mainboard, so dauthercards are > required, all schemes for this are proprietary. > > so whether or not *you* can use it is not the issue. the fact is you are > greatly in the minority and you know it. think of yourself as the > exception that proves the rule. The PPro's are stackable without additional electronics external to the processor. This makes it a *lot* easier to do multiple CPU's up to large numbers. Personally, I'd like a 32 processor machine; of course, that means fixing the kernel so that it doesn't bog down on interprocessor synchronization, starting with the allocation mechanism and a hierarchical lock manager. My goal would be to have incremental compiles going on in edit sessions so that when I was done editing, the code was read to run. I hate this "wait for the compile" BS. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704281717.KAA02093>