From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy" Message-Id: <20010408193610.A1114199FD@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:36:08 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7abe5bbc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Because you need a brain the size of a planet to design a microkernel based system and we only have egos that big. --upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Sun Apr 8 13:56:23 EDT 2001 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Sun Apr 8 13:56:22 EDT 2001 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.16.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id AC097199E3; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cs.usask.ca (cs.usask.ca [128.233.130.77]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2C441199C0 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ultra5d.usask.ca (ultra5d.usask.ca [128.233.130.123]) by cs.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA12000 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (aam396@localhost) by ultra5d.usask.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id LAA17283 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5d.usask.ca: aam396 owned process doing -bs From: Andrey A Mirtchovski X-Sender: aam396@ultra5d.usask.ca To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [9fans] micro vs monolithic kernels Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:55:22 -0600 (CST) hello all, i seem to remember reading somewhere a reasoning on why it was chosen to implement p9 with a monolithic kernel, instead of a micro one.. i can't find the link anymore, so i'd like to ask for, either pointers to any documents discussing this, or a brief explanation in an email from anyone, who feels they can give me one.. let me state the question clearly: why did the bell-labs team chose to implement plan9 using a monolithic kernel? i realize that a comparative analysis of the two architectures can lead to a flamefest, so i ask only for facts :) andrey --upas-klkyqaalbgzyttbcfyhsqnhhyy--