Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 17:06:51 -0400 From: Jeff Love <jl@burghcom.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but ... Message-ID: <539621EB.5020301@burghcom.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1406091528060.6513@sea.ntplx.net> References: <5394A848.7030609@m5p.com> <CAPS9%2BSuR=F2jCsp=%2BHvU3kaZvTtULZ5D%2BkX-1PZdmHd1RP1RSw@mail.gmail.com> <20140609192217.GA69813@ozzmosis.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1406091528060.6513@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/09/2014 04:09 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, andrew clarke wrote: > >> On Sun 2014-06-08 20:58:36 UTC+0200, Andreas Nilsson >> (andrnils@gmail.com) wrote: >> >>>> The party line seems to be, "Well, everybody knows SCHED_ULE sucks >>>> on uniprocessors." Hello? Not everybody has upgraded to multiple >>>> core or hyperthreaded processors yet. Do we really want to write >>>> off every uniprocessor piece of hardware out here? >>>> >>> Yes? Can you even buy a system today that is uniprocessor? My phone is >>> a dual core thing, and it got written of because of its "meagre" >>> hardware. Top of the line phones has 8 cores. So, seriously, what >>> non-ancient system have you acquired that is uniprocessor? Please >>> include links for available hardware for laptops, desktops or servers. >> >> Don't discount virtual machines, where a FreeBSD guest OS might be >> configured to use only one of the host system's CPUs. > > People are also using FreeBSD on small embedded systems, both > x86 and non-x86 based. All the world is not a multiprocessor > x86 system. > > http://www.diamondsystems.com/products/sbcs.php > Those of us with some history running *BSD remember how long we waited for SMP in OpenBSD. -- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?539621EB.5020301>