Re:Mach, a but choise ?
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> If you must choose between misc. microkernels, the perspective changes:
> Mach is a ukernel with a rich set of semantics. Therefore it is bloated
> and not so small than a ukernel should be. They are other microkernels
> that are much smaller and that provide for faster context switches.
First of all, thank you for helping this newbie, your explanation have been
very clear to me, there are still two questions I would like to ask about
what you say of Mach offering more services than The Hurd really needs.
first: is all this extra-functionality still present in the GNU version of
Mach the Hurd currently uses or has it been removed for the sake of resource
second: if it hasn't been removed, is it just because the complexity of the
whole microkernel doesn't allow it without compromising cleanliness or
> One good example of such a lean ukernel is L4 and some people on l4-hurd
> are trying to figure out how to port the Hurd to it. The main philosophy
> of L4 is to provide only an absolute minimal set of services (as opposed
> to Mach). In doing so, the memory footprint of L4 is _much_ slower than
> that of Mach. The main advantage of this is that a context switch in L4
> doesn't flush the processor cache, therefore providing for very fast IPC.
One more thing, if it's not to much to ask, do you know a place where I
could find more information on the L4 microkenel alternative ?
Thanks again and escuse my english.