Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: [SM-Users] tinderboxes

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
  • To: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: [SM-Users] tinderboxes
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:26:33 -0400

Andrew wrote:

Well from a functional standpoint they are essentially the same thing
except you dont get to try a new kernel in a chroot. However the linux
spell is tested very heavily anyways so its a bit irrelevant (and
difficult) to have the tinderbox test it. Is there any other bonus from
using a UML kernel other than its elegant?

Well, that may very well be a reason ;-). Also, it may be easier to maintain.

If we look at things from a efficiency standpoint I'd put my money on
a chroot. A chroot simply remaps some of the values in the chroot'ed
process's tables, and thus all its children as well, thus incurring
essentially no time penalty and running the same as non-chrooted
processes in terms of efficiency. A UML implementation, to my knowledge,
runs a linux kernel as a user land process. This means that any process
running under this user-mode kernel will eventually make system-calls
(thats what a kernel provides), these system-calls in the userland
process will eventually traverse through our user mode kernel down
through some idealized hardware and come back out the other end, where
might this be? well system calls on your native kernel, which then
have to run through a whole mass of stuff (again) before it gets to
real hardware. So you are essentially incurring unnecessary overhead,
and throwing cpu cycles out the window (IMO).

If you look at the whole tinderbox idea from efficiency viewpoint, it's a complete waste of everything.

So we have what amounts to something that is functionally very similiar
but less efficient. If someone has benchmarks to correct me I'd be
willing to change my opinion of course.

Testing is never efficient IMO. It never gives you immediate return on any investments, including time and resources.

Although, I dont think we should rule out UML, we are about choice of
course. Im just trying to point out the relative merits of one approach
to the other, and lets face it, we want to be using every spare cycle
as best we can!

On a side note, I've made significant headway in a beta-version of a
tinderbox. Id like to collaborate on error reporting and stuff with some
people though.

Cool.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page