Re: mach deficiencies
On 31 Aug 1999 22:27:24 -0000, the world broke into rejoicing as
"A. P. Garcia" <apg@execpc.com> said:
> > Mach is aging and it shows. It doesn't take advantage of modern
> > hardware.
>
> Are you referring to SMP here? Where else is it deficient?
Has anybody been porting it to anything new lately, like StrongARM?
> > Mach isn't the fastest microkernel that's around.
>
>Is this because of its design or implementation? If design, what tradeoffs do
>the faster microkernels make? Speed is IMHO less important than simplicity
>of design, maintainability of the code base, and stability. How does
>gnumach fare in these categories? When you mentioned that it's aging, were
>you also implying cruft and bitrot?
The point is that there has been considerable research done since Rashid
left for Microsoft, particularly with L4 at Dresden University, concerning
microkernel performance, thereby showing up more clearly some of the
advantages and disadvantages.
Note that:
a) L4 is actually a small microkernel;
b) OSKit has been showing off that it is useful to create an OS
infrastructure surrounding memory allocation schemes in order to be
supportive of specialized languages;
c) Most early microkernels seem to have been monolithic systems, unlike
Hurd.
The other point is that it may eventually make sense to throw away the
code and create something fresher.
--
Howe's Law:
Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
cbbrowne@hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Reply to: