From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 06:57:57 -1000 From: Tim Newsham To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1465796871-1042875752-1253638677=:23231" Subject: Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7532f520-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1465796871-1042875752-1253638677=:23231 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE >> not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of >> ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functiona= l, >> by design). Some with very good performance. > > i'm not sure what "good performance" means. is there enough > functionality in current =C2=B5kernels to even benchmark real work > against plan 9? you can microbenchmark the ukernel itself and run macrobenchmarks on operating systems sitting atop the ukernel. btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc. Not something you'd likely be able to do yet against something linux- sized. > the original problem posed was the "scalability of linux development". > how does l4 help with linux' development problems? no idea. > - erik Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ --1465796871-1042875752-1253638677=:23231--