On 9 Jun 2000 yoann@mandrakesoft.com wrote:
> "Johan Kullstam" <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > Tonglu Yi <tlyi@fm365.com> writes:
> >
> > > linux is not micro kernel based OS, would it change to that in the
> > > future?
> >
> > never say never, but the chances of this happening are slim and none.
> >
> > especially since linux has automatic loading and unloading of kernel
> > modules, the advantages of microkernel are few.
>
> There is advantage : with microkernel, you have one kernel, which is
> really small and run on top of the system which is there to manage
> basic task, all the other stuff ( drivers for exemple ) are located
> in userspace.
In theory, this is a good thing; in practice, it doesn't gain you very
much. If my network server's NIC driver collapses, and it's running in
usermode, then the server could continue serving files - except... it
doesn't have anywhere to send them! It's effectively dead anyway.
Similarly storage drivers, I/O drivers, etc. OK, there are a few
"expendable" drivers, where I can continue without them - sound, video,
mouse, perhaps. However, if this is a desktop/workstation, I need to
reboot anyway; if it's a server, what does it have a sound card or mouse
for in the first place?!
> The advantage is that there is really not many chance for the kernel
> to crash, as it only do minimal thing.
It's a nice theory, but in practice you need the device drivers working
anyway. Having "the kernel" working, but the machine being isolated from
the outside world with no network or disk access, isn't much different
from the kernel being dead as well.
> If a driver crash, it doesn't disturb the kernel.
No - but it does cripple the machine as a whole, so it might as well take
the kernel with it.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST