[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Samba

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
> more.

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.


Reply to: