Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:06:25 -0300 (ADT) From: User Freebsd <freebsd@hub.org> To: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu> Cc: danial_thom@yahoo.com, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> Subject: SMP Performance (Was: Re: Are hardware vendors starting to bail ... ) Message-ID: <20060713220454.T1799@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <200607131927.k6DJRkEj018727@clunix.cl.msu.edu> References: <200607131927.k6DJRkEj018727@clunix.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jerry McAllister wrote: >> >> >> On Jul 13, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Danial Thom wrote: >> >>> Simply enabling SMP on a single processor system >>> adds 20-25% overhead in freebsd 6.1. Again, >>> readily admitted/accepted by the developers. >>> There is no way to recover that in efficiency, at >>> least not for a long time. >> >> So don't enable SMP on a single cpu system. Easy enough to avoid. >> Chad > > Why would anyone want to enable SMP on a single CPU system anyway. Actually, I believe all the new boot disks / ISOs are all SMP-enabled, so unless you build a custom kernel (some ppl do just run GENERIC ... I'm not one, mind you), you could be running an SMP-enabled kernel on a UP system without even knowing it ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060713220454.T1799>