4 ms·
> On the other hand, a new class of more dynamic and complex applications are also on the horizon, with an increasing demand for application constructs such as
by qwerty456127 8y ago
> On the other hand, a new class of more dynamic and complex applications are also on the horizon, with an increasing demand for application constructs such as in-situ analysis, workflows, elaborate monitoring and performance tools. This complexity relies not only on rich features of POSIX, but also on the Linux APIs (such as the /proc, /sys filesystems, etc.) in particular.
If I were to design a new class of a thing to manage complexity efficiently today I would rather choose to rely on something Plan9-like or entirely new rather than the legacy "rich features of POSIX".
- gnufx 8y agoBut you don't get the choice, given the applications. It's not clear to me how Plan9 would help with relevant problems; it was tried on Blue Gene at one stage. If I got the choice of something different, it would likely be capability-, microkernel-based, which might actually help with the jitter problem.
- bgeerofi 8y agothere is an L4 based effort for HPC at TU Dresden called FFMK. the reality is that for HPC you still need high-performance implementation of fast-path system calls (e.g., memory and process management) and the traditional micro-kernel architecture is not suitable for that. as for POSIX, you don't have a choice, people who write apps are used to POSIX and Linux.