Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virtualized Linux Faster Than Native?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the too-specialized-to-count dept.

^switch writes "Aussies at NICTA have developed a para-virtualized Linux called Wombat that they claim outperforms native Linux. From the article: 'The L4 Microkernel works with its own open source operating system Iguana, which is specifically designed as a base for use in embedded systems.'" Specific performance results are also available from the NICTA website.

7 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. L4 deserves some attention by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that the whole L4 family smicrokernels hould deserve some more attention from IT professionals.
    As far as I know L4 is one of the microkernels with more efforts for development. Along with MinixV3 of course.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  2. Re:Only? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However that quote tells the reason for the performance boost: fast address-space switch (FASS) is supported in L4-embedded, but not in Linux native. IOW, it's not really "virtualized faster than native", but "using FASS faster than not using it". I guess you'd get even better performance if you'd make Linux native support FASS.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Re:defend his position that microkernels are crap? by lp-habu · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What's to defend? Whenever a free microkernel design comes remotely close to the mindshare of Linux, there may be a basis for discussion.

    I hate to point this out, but if mindshare is the criterion then Windows wins. Considering that the average person is almost always wrong, I tend to think that mindshare is a warning flag, not a recommendation.

  4. Re:defend his position that microkernels are crap? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Implement a VFS, the full networking stack as microkernel subsystems and came back to tell me how many different IPC calls you have in your hands

  5. Strange by Sgt+Pinback · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, what are they trying to show? "Because we've implemented support for a certain MMU feature and native Linux hasn't, we've demonstrated that virtualizing Linux on L4 is a good idea"? Doesn't sound perfectly logical to me. Apples and oranges come to mind.

    --

    --

    I do not like the men on this space ship!
  6. Re:defend his position that microkernels are crap? by RedDirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > They had a full operating system, GUI, modem drivers, and web browser, that all fit nicely on a floppy. You can't do that without very well written code.

    Not quite sure that follows. After all, you can do that* with DOS and I don't believe anyone would claim that it's well written code.

    * Well, more or less. You can fit that wacky Caldera browser, Arachne, (beware the 'orrible MIDI music) and some rudimentary network tools (SSH, VNC and ping) on a floppy. Arguably that's not a "full operating system", but I do think my point size != quality still stands.

    --
    James
  7. Re:Pet maths peeve by nuzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's mathematically and grammatically quite sound: if X is 30 times more than Y, then Y is 30 times less than X.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.