Slashdot Mirror
Jeff Roberson Begins FreeBSD SMPng VFS Integration
A FreeBSD User writes "Jeff Roberson has announced that he has has begun integrating the Giant-lock free VFS code into the FreeBSD 6.x development tree. These changes will permit the UFS file system to run on multiple CPUs at a time on SMP systems (hyper-threaded, dual-core, or regular SMP), leading to substantially improved efficiency. It will also permit the VFS code to be fully preemptible on uni-processor systems, improving interrupt handling latency. With this change, almost all of the FreeBSD kernel is able to run fully threaded and in parallel on multiple CPUs with much less contention. He anticipates merging this work as an "opt-in" feature to the FreeBSD 5.x branch in the future. He indicates that the testing will be "opt-in", i.e., this change will not be fully enabled by default for the time being, and that it will take a while (a few hours) to complete the merge, so users of the 6-CURRENT branch may want to hold off updating for a few hours while he finishes the merge. The work was sponsored by Isilon Systems."
OMG WTF BSD SMP VFS? LOL!
Comment of the year
because -stable is *NOT* the place for potentially destructive changes. it is possible that after this change has sat in -current for a few months, and its rock solid, it might be backported. Don't hold your breath though.
In any case, if there is to be a FreeBSD 6.0 someday, it will probably look like Dragonfly. [dragonflybsd.org] I would say that future is now. Dragonfly 1.0 == FreeBSD 6.0
Pfft, what are you smoking? Dragonfly and FreeBSD 6 are going to be nothing alike. FreeBSD 6x is basically a simple evolutionary step away from 5x and as such any fundamental design problems will remain. Dragonfly 1.0 is not really a complete OS so I'm not sure how you can compair it. Dragonfly is taking the 4x branch in a radically different direction and will probably be it's own different flavor within the next 2 years. That's basically like saying FreeBSD 6 == NetBSD 2.2 - the two aren't really similar enough to compair in such a fashion.
I also think FreeBSD shot themselves in the foot by going with the MxN threading model, which sounds great in theory but's a real devil to get implemented to the point where it's correct and useful.
Your kinda missing the point here. FreeBSD has got it implemented to the point where its correct and useful. Having done it kind of nullifies it the disadvantage of it being hard to do.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
It's the difference between -STABLE and -CURRENT. The former only gets bug fixes, and if they've been tested to death, new drivers. As of 5.3, the 5.x branch became -STABLE, so for anything else, you have to use -CURRENT, and be patient and wait for 6.x to become STABLE.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
If you want to give DragonFly another chance, I suggest you use NetBSD's pkgsrc instead of ports. It works perfectly for me.
save the GNUs!
I am yet to see any concrete evidence that DragonFly is currently any better then FreeBSD in terms of performance, or anything for that matter.
I believe that the greatest saying I have ever heard is "put up or shut up." DragonFlyBSD has not done this yet. Until a solid, QUANTITATIVE benchmark between FreeBSD and DragonFly has been made, every claim about DragonFlyBSD's success is premature, and a waste of people's time.
Don't tell me that it's 10% faster. Show me. Show me this earth-changing code in action. I want proof, not an ad campaign.
None of your links refer to DragonFlyBSD, which is what I was referring to.
And at that its 2 processor scaling is something like 60%
Link please.