undefined | Better HN

0 pointssaagarjha2y ago0 comments

No, it doesn’t. Here’s the full quote from their website:

> seL4 is the world’s fastest operating system kernel designed for security and safety

Linux is arguably not designed for security and safety but it blows seL4 out of the water when it comes to performance. There’s a reason it only gets used in contexts where security is critical; I would have expected that you would be aware of this considering you were the one who is promoting it.

0 comments

snvzz2y ago

>but it blows seL4 out of the water when it comes to performance.

Citation needed.

And by that I mean actual benchmarks of Linux doing the few tasks seL4 does, such as IPC or context switching, faster than seL4.

saagarjhaOP2y ago

No, you don’t get to define the benchmarks like that. People use an OS so they can run real-world programs on top of it, not spin it in a loop and see how fast it can do IPC. In a monolithic kernel there’s no need to switch contexts for many things; that’s the entire point of using one. I’m sure that seL4 has a perfectly fast implementation of those operations but that’s because it sits and does those all day as part of its basic functionality. Optimizing overhead doesn’t win you extra points when you’re comparing against an OS that doesn’t have it all.

snvzz2y ago

seL4 is an order of magnitude faster at this "overhead" thing. We're talking nanoseconds vs microseconds difference.

The multiserver architecture does indeed imply an elevated use of IPC, but it does in no way outweigh the difference in IPC cost.

In this model, data sharing, and the implied locking, is minimized, which as a consequence helps SMP scaling.

Dragonfly, while not multiserver proper, took a different direction than Freebsd and Linux by optimizing IPC and not implementing fine-grained locks, and instead favoring concurrent lockless and lockfree servers.

As a consequence, Dragonfly scales much better than Freebsd, and in many benchmarks manages to outperform Linux.

This is despite the tiny development team, particularly so when considered relative to the amount of funding these two systems get.

I am sickened by the effort that's being wasted on a model that we know is bad and does not work. Linux will never be high assurance, secure or scale past a certain point.

Fortunately, no matter how long it'll take, the better technology will win; there's no "performance hack" that a bad system can pull to catch up with the better technology once it's there.

Just a matter of time.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

snvzz2y ago

>but it blows seL4 out of the water when it comes to performance.

Citation needed.

And by that I mean actual benchmarks of Linux doing the few tasks seL4 does, such as IPC or context switching, faster than seL4.

saagarjhaOP2y ago

snvzz2y ago

seL4 is an order of magnitude faster at this "overhead" thing. We're talking nanoseconds vs microseconds difference.

The multiserver architecture does indeed imply an elevated use of IPC, but it does in no way outweigh the difference in IPC cost.

In this model, data sharing, and the implied locking, is minimized, which as a consequence helps SMP scaling.

As a consequence, Dragonfly scales much better than Freebsd, and in many benchmarks manages to outperform Linux.

This is despite the tiny development team, particularly so when considered relative to the amount of funding these two systems get.

I am sickened by the effort that's being wasted on a model that we know is bad and does not work. Linux will never be high assurance, secure or scale past a certain point.

Fortunately, no matter how long it'll take, the better technology will win; there's no "performance hack" that a bad system can pull to catch up with the better technology once it's there.

Just a matter of time.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse