1 files changed, 47 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn b/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..111d2b88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/open_issues/performance/microkernel_multi-server.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+[[!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