From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 19 6:56: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from nero.cybersites.com (nero.cybersites.com [207.92.123.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C08150A4 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cyouse@cybersites.com) Received: from ns1.cybersites.com (ns1.cybersites.com [207.92.123.2]) by nero.cybersites.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA09534; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:53:27 -0400 From: Chuck Youse To: Dennis , chris@calldei.com Subject: Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:47:45 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.17] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <199904152225.SAA20324@etinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99041909500702.38298@ns1.cybersites.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-KMail-Mark: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The ability of NT to take better advantage of multiple processors is a function of design, rather than "working with Intel". NT follows the microkernel design model, with message passing, which is much easier to spread over multiple processors than a typical monolithic kernel design. -- Chuck Youse Director of Systems cyouse@cybersites.com On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Dennis wrote: > Maybe so, but it MAY simply be that microsoft's multiprocessor support > is better than LINUX's...I'd like to see the same test on a single processor > machine....its not impossible that NT4 was optimized for use on a > multi-cpu machine...they certainly have had more time with intel to > work on it than the linux people have. > Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message