[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.

[West Coast Flavor]

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

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tmelon]

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]

I like kernels popcorn!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[njblackberry]

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

[ichat]

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

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tmelon]

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]

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]

Any links for proof?

[BBThemes]

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.

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

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]

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]

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

[tkwolf]

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]

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.

[chrisgotabb]

BTW, if the same comments are being made on other forums, perhaps you should offer that retortment. ^

[Reubechs]

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

Step out of 1995 - Linux is a modular kernel now, and the performance differences for most applications with a microkernel are negligible. This post is relevant only if RIM decides to use single-core processors for BBX devices, which we all know isn't happening.

[eve6er69]

I'm wondering if your running dual core one core can go micro and one can go mono.

For email and bbm use the micro, and all the secure apps like bank of america and such. And for the rest of the apps and non secure websites using the mono.

I don't know about thses things so I'm just throwing my technical thoughts into the wind. Lol

Sent from my thumbs using Tapatalk

[kbz1960]

Meet the Power Behind the BlackBerry Tablet OS

[Reubechs]

I'm wondering if your running dual core one core can go micro and one can go mono.

For email and bbm use the micro, and all the secure apps like bank of america and such. And for the rest of the apps and non secure websites using the mono.

I don't know about thses things so I'm just throwing my technical thoughts into the wind. Lol

Sent from my thumbs using Tapatalk

Interesting. Currently that's not possible, but as with all software it's merely a matter of time before someone gets there, assuming the hardware is designed to handle the instruction set. Closest thing is virtual machine, like what the PB is using to run Android apps.

[dentynefire]

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.



^anyone running BBOS right now can surely agree with that



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.

I really don't know exactly what all this means either but QNX has received lots of praise for its "kernel architecture". If the architecture is done properly to balance these performance issues ie: designed with this in mind then is there an issue? Only guessing but by using the PB and not coming across ANY performance issues at all LOL I say its safe to say QNX really is all its hyped to be. I don't think all micro kernels are created equal just as you can't compare all monolithic kernels a la Microsoft/Linux.

Besides many microkernels are designed for embedded systems where system resources are limited. How many are designed to scale like QNX?

[EchoTango]

The posting is essentially true but overlooks the positive effect of multi-cores and higher processing speeds. Paging machine code in and out of a micro-kernel is not the most efficient processing, but neither is running an interpretive language like IOS or Android. The only way to really maximize performance is to write applications using processor instructions using a symbolic code like assembler.

There are very few programmers who can write in native machine code, and those that can, live in a very different world than the rest of us......

[FourOhFour]

there are very few programmers who can write in native machine code, and those that can, live in a very different world than the rest of us......

nop
nop
nop

[CommanderElvis]

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.



^anyone running BBOS right now can surely agree with that



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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, should really read and post in the morning, but will dual core/Quad core processors properly configured diminish or eliminate most of these downsides?

[FourOhFour]

I would expect microkernel networking to scale better aceoss processors than a monolithic kernel. The Neutrino kernel only really has 2 tasks: scheduling threads and message passing. It will happily do those tasks in parallel across multiple processors.
I think the networking stack is collapsed into a single service as well, so the message-passing overhead is low.

Here's a fun experiment rather than just speculating -- go download QNX for your PC and benchmark the networking throughput on your LAN (not across the internet). Then go install Linux on the same hardware and perform the same test. Report back with your results. Now repeat the same tests while performing some serious computation in another process (eg. computing primes) Report back with those results.

[john wang]

I would expect microkernel networking to scale better aceoss processors than a monolithic kernel. The Neutrino kernel only really has 2 tasks: scheduling threads and message passing. It will happily do those tasks in parallel across multiple processors.
I think the networking stack is collapsed into a single service as well, so the message-passing overhead is low.

Here's a fun experiment rather than just speculating -- go download QNX for your PC and benchmark the networking throughput on your LAN (not across the internet). Then go install Linux on the same hardware and perform the same test. Report back with your results. Now repeat the same tests while performing some serious computation in another process (eg. computing primes) Report back with those results.

I have learned a lot of practical things, thank you!