From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5bcf30769d6d9599 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-02 01:01:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news2.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "McDoobie" Subject: Re: ADA os talk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20010829113230.0ae3febd.tonygair@blueyonder.co.uk> <9miteo$t7r$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9mj1l3$1mn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> User-Agent: Pan/0.8.1beta4 (Unix) X-No-Productlinks: Yes Message-ID: Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 08:01:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.109.49 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news2 999417673 24.0.109.49 (Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:01:13 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:01:13 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:12634 Date: 2001-09-02T08:01:13+00:00 List-Id: In article <9mj1l3$1mn$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" wrote: > Allright - if you say so. :-) > > Quite honestly, you are now outside my circle of experience & buzzwords. > NUMA is a dangling pointer. So I guess I'll just agree and look smart by > association. :-) > > IMHO, a basic Ada kernel is most likely to end up running on a single > processor, but why build in that limitation? IIRC, early versions of > WinNT Workstation would support up to 4 processors - don't know what it > does now. Why not 65536 processors? You'd not likely get there - > discovering that the overhead bogs things down at some point, but why > build in that limitation? While we're at it, why not make it a > distributed kernel so it could be run in a box with, say, 4 processor > cards each with their own memory and with shared memory & communication > channels between them? Designs for such OS's exist & it would seem to be > a good thing to adapt that capability into an Ada OS. It ought to scale > with the app, or is it impossible? (Sort of: "If you've got one > processor/memory compile/boot this way. If you've got N > processors/memories, compile/boot this way...") > > Maybe the best strategy would be to identify someone's OS college text > as the starting point. If they describe some set of OS's in sufficient > detail, it would be a matter of saying "We need to implement chapters 3, > 7 and 12 of this text." The basic requirements would thus be done and a > good part of the design work is right there. Any suggested books? > > MDC > -- > Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology > Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: > marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ > Why even stick with those limits. Why not run the OS over a network with 'Disk' I/O node and a CPU I/O node (could be a seperate server), et... To the apps, it would just look like one huge computer. McDoobie chris@dont.spam.me