Re: [Caml-list] comparison with C performance

[Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 891 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 11:24, Lex Stein wrote:
> Yes, there will be additional context switch costs for a user-land
> implementation. However, where a disk I/O costs a luxury yacht a context
> switch might cost a used bicycle. So I think filesystem designers are in
> the position of not worrying about the old bike because it's best to focus
> negotiating efforts on the yacht. So I guess the question on our mind was;
> is OCaml another luxury yacht?

Your basic argument is reasonable, but I seem to remember one of the
main reasons the previously userland Linux nfs server implementation was
rewritten as a kernel-space server was to improve performance.

Perhaps it's because the typical nfs server serves most of its pages out
of its ram cache so context switches becomes more of an issue?

Anyway, drifting off-topic for this list.

-- 
Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]