Prepare toolchain/logs/master branch.

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 47 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn b/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 111d2b88..00000000
--- a/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
-
-Performance issues due to the microkernel/multi-server system architecture?
-
-IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-26
-
-    < CTKArcher> I read that, because of its microkernel+servers design, the
-      hurd was slower than a monolithic kernel, is that confirmed ?
-    < youpi> the hurd is currently slower than current monolithic kernels, but
-      it's not due to the microkernel + servers design
-    < youpi> the microkernel+servers design makes the system call path longer
-    < youpi> but you're bound by disk and network speed
-    < youpi> so the extra overhead will not hurt so much
-    < youpi> except dumb applications keeping doing system calls all the time
-      of course, but they are usually considered bogus
-    < braunr> there may be some patterns (like applications using pipes
-      extensively, e.g. git-svn) which may suffer from the design, but still in
-      an acceptable range
-    < CTKArcher> so, you are saying that disk and network are more slowing the
-      system than the longer system call path and because of that, it wont
-      really matter ?
-    < youpi> braunr: they should sitll be fixed because they'll suffer (even if
-      less) on monolithic kernels
-    < youpi> CTKArcher: yes
-    < braunr> yes
-    < CTKArcher> mmh
-    < youpi> CTKArcher: you might want to listen to AST's talk at fosdem 10
-      iirc, about minix
-    < youpi> they even go as far as using an IPC for each low-level in/out
-    < youpi> for security
-    < braunr> this has been expected for a long time
-    < braunr> which is what motivated research in microkernels
-    < CTKArcher> I've already downloaded the video :)
-    < youpi> and it has been more and more true with faster and faster cpus
-    < braunr> but in 95, processors weren't that fast compared to other
-      components as they are now
-    < youpi> while disk/mem haven't evovled so fast