Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:53:59 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: David Landgren <david@landgren.net> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 Message-ID: <43711067.2010500@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Landgren wrote: > And Kris Kennaway did write: > >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: >> >>> Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >>> > > [...] > >>> I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT >>> while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with >>> more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to >>> time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... >> >> >> >> That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, >> which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, >> even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS >> is under Giant. > > > Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 > with 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. do some benchmarks before and after :-) > > Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel > configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? > > Thanks for the tips, > David > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43711067.2010500>