Neal H Warfield wrote: > If we reimplement mach over an exokernel, it will only decrease > the microkernel's portability -- we now have a dependency on an > exokernel rather then a generic piece of hardware.
What's the difference? Either you port the Mach microkernel or you port the exokernel. In either case, you have localized machine dependent operations to a small portion of the overall system code. > Additionally, it will not increase performance; the current killer > with the hurd/mach is the number of context switches to do any amount > of work (look in the archives for a discussion of this topic). Will > an exokernel decrease the number of context switches? Unlikely, > however, I am open to suggestions. The very goal of the exokernel design is to reduce the number of context switches required. Check out the site at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/exo.html. This gives a brief introduction. They implemented a Web server on the kernel, called Cheetah, which ran eight times faster than NCSA. You can also obtain volumes of information by going to www.mit.edu and doing a search on "exokernel." Kevin Musick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
