Re: Microkernel Performance: FreeBSD versus Darwin

From: Christoph Hellwig (hch_at_infradead.org)
Date: 09/06/04

  • Next message: Bjoern A. Zeeb: "Re: netgraph locking / performance [was: ... AOE]" 
    Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:47:24 +0100
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>

    On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 07:31:54PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Paul Smith wrote:
    >
    > > Theoretically the microkernel of Darwin should create overheads harming
    > > the performance. Has anybody seen an actual study comparing the
    > > performance of Darwin and FreeBSD?
    >
    > FYI, Darwin doesn't use a microkernel. It includes code elements from
    > Mach, which did use a microkernel, but those elements are integrated into
    > the same address space as the remainder of the kernel (file system,
    > network stack, etc). I'm not sure I've seen any performance studies,
    > regardless.

    http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-ydlg5.html?ca=dgr-mw05LinxOnG5

    has some microbenchmarks for darwin vs linux

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Bjoern A. Zeeb: "Re: netgraph locking / performance [was: ... AOE]"

    Relevant Pages