<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>- Fork is a hard cost operation.
>
> To get an idea how hard fork() is for us, Gianluca did a simple test,
> on GNU/Hurd he got 312 forks/second, and on the same machine but in
> GNU/Linux, he got 8170 forks/second.
Roland and I many years ago came to the conclusi
On 12/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To get an idea how hard fork() is for us, Gianluca did a simple test,
> on GNU/Hurd he got 312 forks/second, and on the same machine but in
> GNU/Linux, he got 8170 forks/second.
FYI, I just compiled and executed under linux and under hurd
- Fork is a hard cost operation.
To get an idea how hard fork() is for us, Gianluca did a simple test,
on GNU/Hurd he got 312 forks/second, and on the same machine but in
GNU/Linux, he got 8170 forks/second.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.or
I think this is a implementation problem, there is no way to fix
it. Maybe this can be fixed rebuilding all Mach
infrastructure. Can anyone confirm that?
The problems with Mach can be fixed by redesigning the way how IPC's
works. Rebuilding the whole Mach infrastructure is a possiblity,
I think this is a implementation problem, there is no way to fix it. Maybe this can be fixed rebuilding all Mach infrastructure. Can anyone confirm that?
Thanks
Matheus Morais
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for the late response. Can anyone explain why that ov
The GNU/Mach misses lot of optimization tips.
Most of these tips was discussed in the Hurdmeeting:
- Memory objects cache doesn't works.
- Main function (mach_msg) length is 1300 lines.
- No multipage transfer support (k0ro fixes that)
- Fork is a hard cost operation.
Implementing transfers by o
Sorry for the late response.
Can anyone explain why that overhead happen in Mach?
The large overhead is mostly related to how the Hurd uses Mach.
Running a single-user server system gets you quite decent performance,
but we have a multi-sever design, where the number of context
switches, and I
At Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:34:12 -0200,
Matheus Morais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoted from Microkernels, Úlfar Erlingsson and Athanasios Kyparlis
> "For some frequent operations, e.g. networking, the overhead of
> context-switching was too great for an out-of-kernel implementation. Thus
> the m
Quoted from Microkernels, Úlfar Erlingsson and Athanasios Kyparlis
"For some frequent operations, e.g. networking, the overhead of
context-switching was too great for an out-of-kernel implementation.
Thus the microkernels were not as efficient as originally thought."
I can't understand why for so
