From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIG->Corba (performance)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:11:19 +0100
> Of course, but any message passing only adds a constant overhead to a single
> message. Performance increase can also be achieved by adding new interfaces,
> which remove the ne
--- "Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well he said performance is not really an issue, but
> this
> is one thing that linux people have been bashing
> hurd with.
> Performance has always been a primary design
> objective in OS
> design.
Well don't you assume that the performance
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Well he said performance is not really an issue, but this
> is one thing that linux people have been bashing hurd with.
> Performance has always been a primary design objective in OS
> design.
I my experience Linux zealots who
Mridul Jain wrote:
>
> Hey things are cool!!It's just a useful discussion.:-)
>
All right :)
> > So, you're saying that a well optimized ORB can be
> > just as good as MIG.
> > That raises two other questions:
> > 1) Is CORBA going to be as slow as MIG?
> > 2) Is MIG slow enough?
>
> I th
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 03:36:37PM -0500, Ingmar Schuster wrote:
> > Performance is not really the concern here, although it is good to know
> > that
> > a CORBA implementation can make special short cuts on the Hurd.
>
> Isn't it? IMHO such an important interface defenitely should be fast.
Of c
> Performance is not really the concern here, although it is good to know
> that
> a CORBA implementation can make special short cuts on the Hurd.
Isn't it? IMHO such an important interface defenitely should be fast.
Ingmar Schuster
___
Bug-hurd mai
