Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
To:        Paul Smith <stork@QNET.COM>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Microkernel Performance:  FreeBSD versus Darwin
Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <200409042056.i84Kudsk021327@cello.qnet.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

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.

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org      Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000>