Quoting netbsd <netbsd@purk.ee>:

> hi
> 
> if u have fast disc a lot of memory and good connection...u should be ok
> with one cpu on NetBSD :)
> 
> Greetings
> 

I'd also like to know what version or date SMP is likely to be imported into 
the main branch.  In spite of that, the answer provided above is not 
unreasonable.

If I might be so bold, what he meant was that a single CPU system running at 
1GHz or better, a 100Meg network link, and a gig of memory should far exceed 
the needs you've expressed here.  I run an ISP with about the same level 
customer support on a single Dell Server with a single 800MHZ AMD CPU and IDE 
drives.  I find that our performance is just fine.  I can run a compile and not 
push the load average above .5.

I use NetBSD on all 25 of the servers in my server-room.  Some of them are 
multiprocessor, some aren't.  I've never found that the 2 proc systems run 
appreciably better than the single proc machine, since all of the systems are 
usually IO bound anyway (network or disk).

Notes:

1)  Use SCSI drives; the bigger the better.  These off-load the processing of 
the disk subsystem and allow the CPU to get on with other things.  Having SCSI 
and a single CPU is almost as good as having two CPUs and IDE.

2)  Don't tell people that you are only using 1 CPU.  Symmetrical 
MultiProcessing isn't the cure-all most people would lead you to believe.  If 
all you use it for is advertising, you'll be political capital ahead.

3)  This assumes you meant what you said about what you want the system to do.  
The programs you use to meet your requirements will certainly affect 
performance more than the ability to have a pair of CPUs.  Adding additional 
functionality means adding more tasks to the list.  Right now, I've got about 
80 packages installed on my mail server (imap-uw, sendmail, spamassassin, etc., 
plus openldap and freeradius).  I use a separate server for DNS and Web 
services, but only because I have a HUGE webserver load on a couple of other 
servers (FrontPage, ASP, Java, JSP, etc.)  If you are going to run a full-
featured webserver, plus sendmail, plus IMAP, plus POP3, plus LDAP, plus a 
bunch of other stuff, then have a dozen CPUs isn't going to get you any more 
bandwidth to the network than your interface card will get you.

4)  There is nothing wrong with starting out the the single CPU version and 
working your way up.  Also you could try OpenBSD, which claims to have multiple 
CPU support available (if only for completeness of the solution space).  Since 
all four systems are free, you could also try each one of them yourself and see 
which one you prefer.  Be careful on the Linux front, though.  There are 
several hundred distributions, and each one supports slightly different 
configurations "out of the box".

> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if there was any realistic estimation (I mean: time, not
> > version number) when NetBSD could support multiprocessor machines in
> > formal release... or am I missing something in i386 section?
> >
> > I have to install in early future a publicly accessible server
> > (https+mailboxes for 16000 users, LDAP client authentication) and I was
> > thinking of NetBSD, FreeBSD or Linux. The main goal is absolute
> > stability. What would you guys recommend? Do you have any experience
> > with virtual mailboxes and how to implement them safely?
> >
> > Thank you for the constructive opinions. (No flamewars, please.)
> >

-- 
Dave Burgess
Chief Technology Officer
Nebraska On-Ramp, Inc
Bellevue, NE

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/