From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 24 14:10:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from postal.linkfast.net (postal.linkfast.net [208.160.105.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706BD37BAAD for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:10:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@linkfast.net) Received: by postal.linkfast.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 711B49B06; Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:40 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:40 -0500 From: Matthew Fuller To: Steve Passe Cc: Chuck Paterson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <20000524161040.Z660@linkfast.net> References: <200005241446.IAA05589@berserker.bsdi.com> <200005241528.JAA23192@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200005241528.JAA23192@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>; from smp@timing.com on Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0600 X-OS: FreeBSD Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0600, a little birdie told me that Steve Passe remarked > > We would have no need for SMP on 486 or 586, however losing UP on 486 > would be a problem. Just as a side point (a fair bit of this discussion is over my head, so I'm not sure if this is really relevant or not, but...), I would dispute the second half of the first part above. While SMP on 586 is certainly not mainstream, I'm sure I'm far from the only one with a multi-proc 586 machine. It'd be quite a shame to abandon that market without at least more looking into the problems that would be faced in supporting it. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@linkfast.net Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message