3 ms·
There are no proper L4 performance comparisons. A few benchmark L4Linux, where L4 is not used as a microkernel but a hypervisor which consequently proves nothi
by panpanna 7y ago
There are no proper L4 performance comparisons.
A few benchmark L4Linux, where L4 is not used as a microkernel but a hypervisor which consequently proves nothing about the micokernel paradigm.
- pjmlp 7y agoAn hypervisor is a kind of microkernel. The benchmark is its use as radio OS on many handsets.
- panpanna 7y agoYes, but... This usage goes against many of the security claims of microkernels. In particular. If Linux is big and insecure running it in a VM doesn't really improves its security. It just make sure it doesn't infect the rest of the system. For this type of benchmark the "rest of the system" does not exist. (I assume you meant the baseband processor in iPhone and Android. I don't think either use a clean microkernel and there isn't really a performance comparison available)
- pjmlp 7y agoI prefer to see hypervisors used alongside Unikernels in what concerns security. For me the benchmark that counts is "does it deliver in production", winning ms in laboratory micro-benchmarks is kind of useless. Specially when so many are willing to waste those ms running Electron apps on userspace.
- mcguire 7y agoI've forgotten it's title, but there was a performance comparison between Linux and MkLinux (with the OSF/Mach microkernel) in the one and only FSF free software conference. It had my favorite chart: a barchart showing the relative performance. The top half was 1:1; the bottom half was 1:2 or so. The top half was Dhrystones (CPU integer performance), the bottom was various syscalls.
- snvzz 7y agoSection 2.1, table 1:4. https://ts.data61.csiro.au/publications/nicta_full_text/8988.pdf https://ts.data61.csiro.au/publications/nicta_full_text/8988...