Neal H Warfield wrote:
> A microkernel attempts to manage the low level
> resources and export an interface. An exokernel, on the other hand,
> merely wraps the resources in a security blanket and exports them to
> the applications directly. This would require a hurd library to provide
> the current mach environment, which could increase context switches even
I'm assuming that the hurd library(ies) that implements Mach services simply
runs in user space. Consequently, for certain operations, say perhaps an
IPC send() or recv(), that a context switch would not be required.
> It is my feelings that to use an exokernel will require nearly all of the
> kernel to be reimplemented over it
Agreed. I am not dissatisfied with Mach, although it is an aging
microkernel and if there were significant, tangible benefits to the end user
of an alternative design, I think it's worth speculation. I like the Hurd
and I applaud its architecture over more monolithic systems such as Linux.
End users, however, won't care about conceptual superiority -- they'll look
for real world justification for choosing a particular platform.
- Re: Samba
- From: Neal H Walfield <firstname.lastname@example.org>