Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:31:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Paul Smith <stork@QNET.COM> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Microkernel Performance: FreeBSD versus Darwin Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200409042056.i84Kudsk021327@cello.qnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Paul Smith wrote: > Theoretically the microkernel of Darwin should create overheads harming > the performance. Has anybody seen an actual study comparing the > performance of Darwin and FreeBSD? FYI, Darwin doesn't use a microkernel. It includes code elements from Mach, which did use a microkernel, but those elements are integrated into the same address space as the remainder of the kernel (file system, network stack, etc). I'm not sure I've seen any performance studies, regardless. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000>