Catalin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So the HURD will be the most stable and the most secure operating system > on earth but also the most slowest operating system on earth (because > the request travels a longer way)?
This just prooves that every-day science is broken. Some performance critical applications (not servers) would benefit from the Hurd's design (google for "User-Level Networking" and check the performance results). It just contradicts what you said, packets would have a longer path from user-space applications to the in-kernel stack (this involves expensive copying) un-like in most ULN stacks. Intel, Microsoft, Compaq (HP atm) and others from the VIARCH alliance beleave that ULN is the future, check U-Net (I forgot the URL, google it :p) as a good example of how fast ULN could be, they managed to get a fast ethernet NIC to compete with a 155MB ATM connection. Usuauly design mistakes are the reason of degrading applications/servers's performance. One good example of this is Foxnet's ULN stack (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/papers/foxnet/hosc.pdf ) the guys actually cared about getting it to work in any form, but I think that with some improvments (namely, a better packet classifier to hand packets to the upper-layers in a faster scheme) it would compete with other in-kernel stacks. So, I guess I'll just agree with wolfgang, and wont blame the Hurd for being slow by design. After all, everything has advantages and disadvantages. But after all, I could be wrong and anyway, I have nothing to do with OS design. Cheers, kotry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com