Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:48:12 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: kd5ob@theshop.net Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The low priority items Message-ID: <199708180148.UAA00359@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <33F78D7E.2610@theshop.net> from Charles Ebert at "Aug 17, 97 06:47:10 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm a little slow. Did I read correctly that Threaded processes are > not supported? And the next line down from that mentioned something > of the same, however, can I assume it is to deal with multiprocessor > CPU boards as well? > Threaded processes are not "supported" yet, but code exists in the -current FreeBSD kernel. I am one of the people creating that support. We do have a pthread(s) library, but that doesn't take advantage of SMP (yet.) > channel scsi cards and all that. > > I was always told of UNIX's unique ability to run multiple processor > systems. I never imagined that this system would have a problem with > threading. I was hoping that the multiple processor issue would > have a higher priority than it does. > There aren't any problems. Different OSes have different advantages and disadvantages. For example, you can create an entirely new process on FreeBSD in a few hundred microseconds. A kernel-based thread can be created in several ten's of microseconds. Creating new processes on NT (or many commercial versions of U**X) is/are much much slower. The multiple processor support is a pretty much fully funded effort, and user-land code (like compiles) already sees a significant performance improvement on SMP machines, when running the -current kernel. When we "support" an SMP release, it will be very very good. I am also working on the SMP team. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708180148.UAA00359>