3 ms·
>but what major advances in monolithic kernels have there been to invalidate them now? What are the significant advances in micro kernels that does not apply t
by BurningCycles 7y ago
>but what major advances in monolithic kernels have there been to invalidate them now?
What are the significant advances in micro kernels that does not apply to monolithic kernels ?
Also they are not only VERY old, they seem intentionally vague when it comes to actual data about the systems they are comparing against. In short, I welcome the new micro kernels so that we can see a comparison between modern monolithic and modern micro kernels and actually get a good representation of what the performance difference is.
Because if not for performance, there is no reason not to use a micro kernel.
- gnufx 7y agoThe L4 work is usually quoted for relatively recent advances. Presumably monolithic kernels don't benefit from performance work that's specific to micro-kernel message passing, if performance was all that mattered. I don't remember the OS4000 context switching time but it was fast in comparison with other systems of the 1980s, and it was very fast in actual use (running real-time and interactive processes). The performance of L4Linux is quoted within the typical margin of speculative execution mitigations relative to Linux. However, it's a strange idea to me that speed is all that matters for an OS, and not reliability, trustworthiness, etc.