Neal H Warfield wrote:
> If we reimplement mach over an exokernel, it will only decrease
> the microkernel's portability -- we now have a dependency on an
> exokernel rather then a generic piece of hardware.
What's the difference? Either you port the Mach microkernel or you port the
exokernel. In either case, you have localized machine dependent operations
to a small portion of the overall system code.
> Additionally, it will not increase performance; the current killer
> with the hurd/mach is the number of context switches to do any amount
> of work (look in the archives for a discussion of this topic). Will
> an exokernel decrease the number of context switches? Unlikely,
> however, I am open to suggestions.
The very goal of the exokernel design is to reduce the number of context
Check out the site at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo.html. This gives a
brief introduction. They implemented a Web server on the kernel, called
Cheetah, which ran eight times faster than NCSA. You can also obtain
volumes of information by going to www.mit.edu and doing a search on
- Re: Samba
- From: Neal H Walfield <email@example.com>