From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep  5 23:34:46 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4900E16A4CE
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun,  5 Sep 2004 23:34:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6FB43D2D
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun,  5 Sep 2004 23:34:45 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by fledge.watson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i85NVwpc011773;
	Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i85NVs8O011770;
	Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Paul Smith <stork@QNET.COM>
In-Reply-To: <200409042056.i84Kudsk021327@cello.qnet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Microkernel Performance:  FreeBSD versus Darwin
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:34:46 -0000


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