Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:47:24 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Microkernel Performance: FreeBSD versus Darwin Message-ID: <20040906094724.A4262@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@freebsd.org on Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 07:31:54PM -0400 References: <200409042056.i84Kudsk021327@cello.qnet.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040905193036.417N-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040906094724.A4262>