Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 18:11:38 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When to consider the new scehduler? Message-ID: <20020816171138.GA60820@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <1029501575.404.10.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org> References: <20020816104037.GA58453@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CDF48.9C9B30ED@mindspring.com> <20020816115957.GA58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3D5CEE39.51E55574@mindspring.com> <20020816123521.GB58797@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <1029501575.404.10.camel@lerlaptop.lerctr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:39:35AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: | On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 07:35, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: | > | > Why don't they just add an extra CPU to handle the GUI?? ;-) | > | | > | They did. 4.0.2 was the ES/MP (Enhanced Security/Multi Processing) | > | > I thought only NT-SMP did that. I *thought* I was being funny. :-) | SVR4.2 is a totally threaded kernel. SVR5 (UnixWare 7/OpenUNIX 8) takes | it even further. I run an OpenUnix 8+ box in addition to FreeBSD. if | any FreeBSD developers want a shell account to look around, I can | arrange it. | | [snip] I was just making a joke about how (IIRC) Win2K's use of a second CPU in the default setting is just to offload all of the GUI handling to it, so the UI stays snappy even when the machine is heavily loaded. I would expect more advanced OS's to use a much better scheduler to make better use of the other CPU. jm -- My other computer is your Windows box. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020816171138.GA60820>