From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 16 20:37:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1C016A4CE for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:37:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (wcborstel.demon.nl [82.161.134.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EF043D41 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:37:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.nl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA0D4511; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:39:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.wcborstel.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92968-01; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:39:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0372B4510; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:39:25 +0200 (CEST) From: "Jorn Argelo" To: "adp" Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:39:25 +0200 Message-Id: <20040916203724.M79821@wcborstel.nl> In-Reply-To: <060501c49c18$ad4c3f60$6401a8c0@THEBOX> References: <060501c49c18$ad4c3f60$6401a8c0@THEBOX> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.40 20040816 X-OriginatingIP: 82.161.134.53 (jorn) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.wcborstel.nl cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP on SMP-capable system with one processor X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:37:03 -0000 On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:09:22 -0500, adp wrote > We have several Dell-based systems that are dual-processor capable, > but have only one processor. The FreeBSD 4.9 kernels for each > system is compiled with SMP support, even though there is only one > processor on each system right now. > > Would this actually reduce performance on a single processor system? > I know that SMP kernels have to worry about special locking, and may > be doing unnecessary work. > I don't think so. There are probably quite a few machines out there that run the GENERIC kernel, which includes SMP support. Remember it's just support; it's not required for the machine to function. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Cheers, Jorn