4 ms·
To the extent the OP took it, as a universal way that 'servers' could go, not very feasible. Partly because we already HAVE what's being described, in the form
by FooHentai 8y ago
To the extent the OP took it, as a universal way that 'servers' could go, not very feasible. Partly because we already HAVE what's being described, in the form of hypervisors.
We then layer within it all that other stuff that's chopped away to bring us back to a system that has a bunch of stuff we want, but most importantly that supports a wide range of applications we want to deploy.
The big problem with stripping back to the absolute bare essentials is that you optimize towards a local maxim, and severely limit your flexibility. This is certainly the way you want to go if you have deep pockets coupled with a need for bare-bones speed that can't be sharded in an effective manner. But that's not the majority of workloads.
- detuur 8y agoHonestly the overhead of a modern OS, especially one like Linux which has been finetuned for these sorts of workloads is negligible. More importantly, any gains you make by stripping out parts of the OS you don't need you immediately throw away by going for a virtualised, sandboxed ISA. If you want to squeeze more performance per watt than you can get from a modern server, the only way forward is to code your application in Verilog and to run it on an FPGA or ASIC.
- vthriller 8y agoIt's not only about performance per something though, see e.g. this paper about boot time optimizations: http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/paper.pdf http://oirase.annexia.org/tmp/paper.pdf