| |||||||||||||
If Mach was the failure point, why?If Mach was the failure point, why?Posted Jul 7, 2010 11:36 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: If Mach was the failure point, why? by michaeljt Parent article: GNU HURD: Altered visions and lost promise (The H)
a userspace server to multiplex the driver which can accept socket connections or whatever from clients and can accept and return data as ethernet frames, ip packages or whateverI thought the whole point of VJ tunnels was to avoid copies? Possibly we want a scheme where the kernel hands you raw IP packets which may be zero-copied. If you have NAT or some kinds of firewalling in the way obviously they would not be, but sometimes they would, and when they were you could gain the speed benefits. This doesn't stop the kernel inspecting the raw IP packets and sending them to different clients or anything like that, so I don't think you need a userspace multiplexor at all.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||