Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:27 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Microkernel vs Monolithic Kernel, Part II
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:38 pm 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000*
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:32 pm
Posts: 2555
Location: Somewhere between compilation and linking
Some of you may remember or later read the debate between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensour ... /appa.html

I'm coming into the second edition a little late to the game, but it looks like some good discussion has been going on regarding the merits of each system. There are so many 'systems' guys around here that I can't believe didn't already bring this up. So what do you guys think?

Tanenbaum's paper on reliable and secure systems
Linus' email response
Andrew's response to Linus' statements
Debunking Linus's Latest by Johnathan Shapiro


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:50 pm 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
I honestly think that there needs to be a happy medium in between the two. Microkernels are good for embedded systems where there are very specific demands, but a desktop system? I am still out on this one. Seems there would be too much loading and unloading etc.

However, having a monolithic one, loaded to the brim, is just as bad for a desktop system, cuz you have a bunch of crap.

::shrug::


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Microkernel vs Monolithic Kernel, Part II
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:32 pm 
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
Bitchin' Fast 3D Z8000
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:04 pm
Posts: 985
Location: Earth
I'm not a huge Systems guy, wanted to get more into it post-graduate but never did (I fell in love with money and my post-graduate career kind of fizzled). Anyways...

monolithic kernels have their place, but I tend to disagree with Linus. Me thinks that his arguments are based more on bias on his beloved Linux than on actualities. True, monolithics have their speed but monolithic kernels have their profound issue: if the kernel goes, so does just about everything else. I like the idea of message passing because it removes fault capacity out of the kernel. Suppose you have a bad driver, a well-designed microkernel can easily kill a user process when it fails.

To me, this is why Singularity (Microsoft Research) is such an interesting project. It takes the concept of type safety and language safety and incorporates it into an Operating System. It then goes above it and it ensures that each user process has sufficient knowledge of itself and the messages it passes to the kernel.

However, to me, an even more efficient kernel is the exokernel. I'm not too thrilled about high levels of abstractions and I'm not too thrilled about message passing either. I think that the kernel should be kept simple in that its only job is to divvy out resources, the rest is up to the application code. Truthfully, most modern OS' are actually hybrid's and are implemented with both micro and monolithic kernels in mind. I think that we need to break away from this and move to a more exokernel structure.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group