From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 21b8b727 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 06:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E9197A20B7; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 16:30:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0073A1A9F; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 16:29:48 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=EbRzAyyF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B7ADCA1A9A; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 16:29:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com (mail-wr1-f48.google.com [209.85.221.48]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E890A1A90 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 16:29:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id j26-v6so14725938wre.2 for ; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:29:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=smLdxTxMKqnnZN/Ex52bT7Hd89mUhP0iPcY1SGb7LFM=; b=EbRzAyyFf78oMgkpCfaVNGe9PlQdkWXx7SUra5Aw5uGpHKa4W4IemTysvEYu45DU01 NlBNXP2u0n8JHlhd/3HVvcP2O/GtDYGqsFgOnD1WDSrcM+TTrRRchZLUw5dJXa0dkZC9 0tkL+tZ7UZ+GYASOG++5RP+KptE2Qx5EbBZVx9WXCkaeCwIHYa0CP1FibEQg6vl+lp+1 ljYD94GBtQp5GMa8kQNEm8I2x2CtYTVsJL66YNyeJ+/BCRNCwYpwpzdsslv2UWHsCmxq yuEWldGsLeE+84BVjdM2d+RcW3jxshz3MhW1KZc462RYbeF4i03eF1abeuaANK3Dty9x Qp1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=smLdxTxMKqnnZN/Ex52bT7Hd89mUhP0iPcY1SGb7LFM=; b=CExguNFiGUC6gEGvDZRRcrH1ebgEkLaza5xkxDvDZPpVorbIhKkOzUZOzwhLX6/jen X50kL+p+Ll4a6Ip1foEie5lufHvYiC8uwL8Vu3qeB/xqyhyi18oNwbby7ZRN2CFLdXsT actaGfnohcGV0onxjK9myI4D2LWvBN32KhOX3bdM8M4CNtB7H5vKII+L0wwcuZVfZ1ro JOQS5OeGNgqW9SAPYHw1yJh+8HKyCqVxTLKYZdciv/UFRQv5Qq+O+uPKpVXCvfc/mVo7 QWLMPDYSSpf20JvzIS0HOixhapsp/bS5RlF2VsJesKw7WAbsPOudRlksKWt+/ShZHCBk h2yw== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CKVG/umuroeBw+3ntXVNitVEF1RR64ast2QXMsGGGgKXa8qf91 01lDhj19TWszpi1N70GQ72gnNUpOZ2MQRQD9QCk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vdb/la0xNTFM2IcBx5Irh9Li4/QwObD1RZGsar86hozdonqhPqziioWEu27DYx7ZajAxJDmKBiFZqmSB2n1E84c= X-Received: by 2002:adf:fe06:: with SMTP id n6-v6mr15974262wrr.171.1535869783270; Sat, 01 Sep 2018 23:29:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:adf:80a3:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Sep 2018 23:29:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180901185053.GA20993@mcvoy.com> From: Andy Kosela Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 08:29:42 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 17mpRWKWnCZTpTctttocSfuaIRg Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da6d1b0574dd8c52" Subject: Re: [TUHS] UVM VM system X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000da6d1b0574dd8c52 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Saturday, September 1, 2018, Clem Cole wrote: > > > >> >> Has FreeBSD considered this? >> > Last I knew, no. I was under the impression, the work FreeBSD did > rewriting the Mach stuff paid off for them at the time. I have FreeBSD, > OpenBSD and Linux (and Mac OSx) all running on my systems here. But the > problem is that the HW is all over the map in termns of release date, so > I'm not sure which is faster at this point. The *BSD systems are the > easiest to admin and clean/simplest (which is why they only systems I have > exposed is an OpenBSD box). > OpenBSD is also using uvm[1]. But these days it certainly differs from NetBSD implementation as it was hacked on by different people during the last several years. [1] https://man.openbsd.org/uvm.9 --Andy --000000000000da6d1b0574dd8c52 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Saturday, September 1, 2018, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
=C2=A0

Has FreeBSD considered this?
Last I knew, no.=C2=A0= I was under the impression, the work FreeBSD did rewriting the Mach stuff = paid off for them at the time.=C2=A0 I have FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Linux (and= Mac OSx) all running on my systems here.=C2=A0 =C2=A0But the problem is th= at the HW is all over the map in termns of release date, so I'm not sur= e which is faster at this point.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The *BSD systems are the easie= st to admin and clean/simplest (which is why they only systems I have expos= ed is an OpenBSD box).=C2=A0

<= /div>
OpenBSD is also using uvm[1].=C2=A0 But these days it certainly d= iffers from NetBSD implementation as it was hacked on by different people d= uring the last several years.


<= /div>
--Andy
--000000000000da6d1b0574dd8c52--