On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:57:04 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Jan 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Barney Cordoba wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 1/7/13, Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdl...@alogt.com> > >> Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP > >> To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cord...@yahoo.com> > >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > >> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013, 10:56 PM > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 18:25:58 -0800 (PST) > >> Barney Cordoba <barney_cord...@yahoo.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I have a situation where I have to run 9.1 on an old > >> single core box. > >>> Does anyone have a handle on whether it's better to > >> build a non SMP > >>> kernel or to just use a standard SMP build with just > >> the one core? > >>> Thanks. > >> > >> I ran a single CPU version of FreeBSD until my last single > >> CPU got hit > >> by a lightning last April or May without any problems. > >> > >> I never saw a reason to include the overhead of SMP for this > >> kind of > >> machine and I also never ran into problems with this. > > > > Another "ass"umption based on logic rather than empirical evidence. > > It isn't really an offhanded assumption because there _is_ > additional overhead added into the kernel structures to make things > work SMP with locking :). Whether or not it's measurable for you and > your applications, I have no idea. > HTH, > -Garrett
Where's Kris Kennaway when you need something compared, benchmarked under N different types of loads, and nicely graphed? Do we have a contender? :) cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
