Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:52:09 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@opensail.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, mjacob@FreeBSD.org, "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC Message-ID: <4580E689.4070000@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <DEEEA0CE-4480-4015-9F51-50D0F48E65F0@opensail.org> References: <200612140357.kBE3vY0Q053458@repoman.freebsd.org> <4580CD6A.5090802@samsco.org> <20061213201031.T26658@ns1.feral.com> <4580D3BB.7060504@samsco.org> <20061213210116.P26879@ns1.feral.com> <4580DE4E.3080008@samsco.org> <DEEEA0CE-4480-4015-9F51-50D0F48E65F0@opensail.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wes Peters wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Scott Long wrote: > >> mjacob@freebsd.org wrote: >>>> There wasn't a full switchover to SMP at 6.0 because an SMP kernel on a >>>> UP system incurs a measurable runtime overhead, and we wanted to >>>> present >>>> a system that showed the best of FreeBSD to people who wanted to run it >>> But David's point is that most AMD64 boxes *are* SMP, not UP. Is that >>> wrong? >> >> 1. There are plenty of single core Opterons and Athlon64 chips still in >> service. Maybe AMD sells more SMP systems now than UP systems, but >> their prior sales of UP systems didn't magically disappear overnight. >> >> 2. The decision was made in spring of 2005, before dual core chips were >> widely used. While we knew that such chips would be available, we >> wanted to have consistency for the transition. >> >> 3. This change, had it not been reverted, would have broken the >> consistency in the major release stream that we were trying to achieve. >> You spell it 'POLA', I spell it 'consistent'. Either way, I think that >> we both have a deep concern and appreciation for doing the right thing >> and not pissing people off with surprises. >> >> 4. When 7.0 is released in 2007, the transition will be complete. > > These are all fine points, Scott is right about everything *except* > calling David an idiot. David, who is not an idiot, politely backed out > the change. Please end this thread now. > I respect Matt's questions on the topic, and I hope that I am providing reasonable answers and conversation on it. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4580E689.4070000>