New BBX OS may be a Problem

john wang · Thread Author #1 10-22-2011, 09:45 PM

The new Rim Operating System BBX may have problems for internet applications. This OS is based on QNX which is a real time OS and has a microkernel architecture. The problem with microkernels is that while it makes it easier to add new features and services, it has performance limitations compared to the monolithic kernel which is used by Linux, Microsoft Windows and Apple.
In a demanding network application like the Internet can be, this performance handicap of the microkernel architecture will cause delays and service stoppages. When you have parallel processing (multicore), multiuser, multitasking, multiapplication, multinetworking etc like the present network environment a monolithic kernel is essential for performance reasons. The load is too heavy for microkernels.

West Coast Flavor · #2 10-22-2011, 09:48 PM

What do I go to school for to understand microkernals n such things?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

tmelon · #3 10-22-2011, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john wang

The new Rim Operating System BBX may have problems for internet applications. This OS is based on QNX which is a real time OS and has a microkernel architecture. The problem with microkernels is that while it makes it easier to add new features and services, it has performance limitations compared to the monolithic kernel which is used by Linux, Microsoft Windows and Apple.
In a demanding network application like the Internet can be, this performance handicap of the microkernel architecture will cause delays and service stoppages. When you have parallel processing (multicore), multiuser, multitasking, multiapplication, multinetworking etc like the present network environment a monolithic kernel is essential for performance reasons. The load is too heavy for microkernels.

Click to view quoted image

*nods head and smiles while pretending to understand what you're saying*

chuckkdaduck · #4 10-22-2011, 09:58 PM

I like kernels popcorn!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

njblackberry · #5 10-22-2011, 10:00 PM

Same comments (word for word) have been posted on other forums and blogs. Sounds like an unhappy developer or former employee.

ichat · #6 10-22-2011, 10:01 PM

Thanks for the info.... Wait you lost me there

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

tmelon · #7 10-22-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckkdaduck

I like kernels popcorn!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I hope the kernels don't end up at the bottom of the bag. If I leave it in the microwave too long it gets burnt, but if I take it out all the kernels end up at the bottom.

avt123 · #8 10-22-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmelon

I hope the kernels don't end up at the bottom of the bag. If I leave it in the microwave too long it gets burnt, but if I take it out all the kernels end up at the bottom.

I know right! Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.

I can see this thread turning ugly fast.

bearcatrp · #9 10-22-2011, 10:08 PM

Any links for proof?

BBThemes · #10 10-22-2011, 10:22 PM

to add some context, i figured id add a link with a comparison of the two.

Different Kernel Designs Overview

and here are two quotes from that article, note its prob best to read all for a full context.

Quote:

The disadvantages of the monolithic kernel are converse with the advantages. Modifying and testing monolithic systems takes longer than their microkernel counterparts. When a bug surfaces within the core of the kernel the effects can be far reaching. Also, patching monolithic systems can be more difficult (especially for source patching).

^anyone running BBOS right now can surely agree with that

Quote:

Disadvantages in the microkernel exist however. A few examples are:
•Larger running memory footprint
•More software for interfacing is required, there is a potential for performance loss (note, the QNX system is extraordinarily fast).
•Messaging bugs can be harder to fix due to the longer trip they have to take versus the one off copy in a monolithic kernel.
•Process management in general can be very complicated.

The disadvantages for microkernels are extremely context based. As an example, they work well for small single purpose (and critical) systems because if not many processes need to run, then the complications of process management are effectively mitigated

so thats both downsides, note QNX as such is running the device, not nessecarily their server farms,so the whole `performance limitation for multiple uses` isnt really valid for handsets (view playbook to see multitasking prowess), its more applicable to their BIS/BES servers if they are running microkernel, but even then it would totally depend how its all set up.

bounce007 · #11 10-22-2011, 11:53 PM

You would think if someone is going to copy another person's post on a different blog, he would rewrite in his own words instead of plagiarizing. Guess my expectations for the OP are too high....

suzicat · #12 10-23-2011, 12:14 AM

There's some thing very fishy about this post and user. Same exact post, verbatim, at another fourm, different username.

tkwolf · #13 10-23-2011, 02:18 AM

I am no IT guy but based on what the OP said, that's quite a sad thing. I'm sure RIM has its staff looking for some workarounds on this.

chrisgotabb · #14 10-23-2011, 02:39 AM

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the OP.

Have you heard of IOS XR by Cisco? It is the QNX developed operating system used by the largest carrier routers in existance at the large switching hubs linking up the internet. Chances are that your internet data is being channeled to you by a QNX powered switch.

If anything, QNX is THE AUTHORITY on handling demanding internet traffic. So I would not worry or speculate based on what you have heard about micro-kernels.