Subject: Re: various changes on INSTALL and iso generation
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Erik Berls <email@example.com>
Date: 02/27/2007 08:29:17
If its a matter of awaiting sysinst, can we make MP the default then?
Seriously, it will be harder to find UP machines with the direction
Intel/AMD is going. I feel strongly that this is even something that
should be pulled up to netbsd-4.
On 2/27/07, Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 11:27:36PM -0800, Erik Berls wrote:
> > [cc: - port-i386]
> > Excelllent. I was considering making ACPI and MP default for
> > port-amd64. With the addition of -NOMP and -NOACPI kernels. The
> > mailing list seemed to errupt in a thread about ACPI breaking on a
> > large number of machines, so I aborted, and then didn't have time to
> > revisit.
> > Can we get MP added as a default?
> It's already available from the list of kernels to install, I'm not
> sure if it's a good idea to make it the default. The performance hit
> is noticeable on UP machines. Ideally sysinst should be able to make
> SMP or UP the default after detecting the number of CPU, but that's
> another story.
> > How much of these fixes can get pulled up to netbsd-4? (eg. if we
> > are able to patch for the dell, etc..)
> I intend to get these in netbsd-4. But I have some more changes to do to the
> iso build infrastructure first.
> Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference