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
mach
> 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.
Kevin
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Samba
- From: Neal H Walfield <neal@walfield.org>