On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Thomas Kern<[email protected]> wrote:
> Back to the linux implementation, I don't think it has to be something > invasive that requires acceptance from all the x86 linux authorities, One of the risks of single operating system for multiple platforms is that you end up restricting yourself to only supporting the function that all platforms have in common. Or in the case of Linux, because of the pure numbers: when it is also available and needed on x86. When many developers have their fingers in the code, it is very hard to justify complicating the code just for a small percentage of the installations. That's why CMM-2 ended up the way it did. And it turns out that the requirements in those areas are also different. If you're used to dedicated hardware and consider "top" your main/only source of information, then you probably don't worry about capture ratio of process usage accounting. Why else do you think we find the bugs in Linux process accounting. The same thing also happens on application level. When the vendor decides to use a single source for his application on different operating systems, the easiest approach is to "dumb down" the OS interface to the minimum supported anywhere. So instead of proper inter-process communication, we find the application polling. By the time the application is used on shared hardware and it causes performance issues, it is too late to change the design. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
