Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:52:14 -0700 (MST) From: Don Yuniskis <dgy@rtd.com> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: OSF Micro Kernel for Linux/FreeBSD/etc Message-ID: <199603272052.NAA19259@seagull.rtd.com> In-Reply-To: <199603271823.LAA01607@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Mar 27, 96 11:23:40 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems that Terry Lambert said: > > > OSF/1 MK is a serverized version of OSF/1, the same as Mach > > 3.0/UX is the serverized version of Mach 2.x. Basically they took the > > code that was above the Mach layer and moved it into a server, just > > keeping the Mach abstractions in the kernel. However, lately even > > OSF/1 MK has been doing ``In Kernel Servers'', where they move the > > server back into the kernel's address space and sort-circuit the RPC's > > (turn them into function calls) to get better performance. > > Message overhead is the reason that Chorus changed tactics (Chorus is I assume that was especially nasty for their COOL runtime. > a "competing" microkernel that USL was using to implement the next > version of System V after SVR4.2 was released; it ran "NetWare" and > "UnixWare" personalities simultaneously). The amount of protection > domain crossing in MACH is prohibitive for anything but monolithic > servers... the performance just isn't there otherwise. The real win (actually !lose) is when the RPC's are truly remote as in a NoW application.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603272052.NAA19259>