Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  An Unencrypted Look at FileVault
Subject:   FileVault performance tax
Date:   2003-12-20 07:14:57
From:   anonymous2
Response to: FileVault performance tax

would all that overhead in the kernal be the same that let's OSX run all sorts of business and creative apps that linux people would droll over?


Sorry. just trying to keep things in perspective here. I just am remembering linus's crying about how apple "monolithic (or was it the other type of kernal) was "crap". Ummm linus, linux is good for a server and that's about it unless you are a übergeek that just likes to fiddle. What good is a leaner kernal to normal users if it doesn't run the apps they want or need?


Bck on topic. I've used FV on my dual 2gig g5. I would agreee with the author. if you do "business" type work. then use it. If you do "creative" type work you may not want to.


i've heard of improvments in 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 and i only have experience with 10.3


Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

  • FileVault performance tax
    2003-12-21 15:03:51  tychay [View]

    It's the other way around. NT and Darwin have a microkernel and Linux has a monolithic. Not too sure if it is a big issue anymore since many of the advantages of a ukernel have been incorporated in Linux, very few things take advantage of the inherent advantages of a ukernel ("Classic" old Windows compatibility), and the slowdown of a ukernel vs. a monolithic gets marginalized as applications get more complex. (Certainly not an "order of magnitude" like the original flamebait claims.)

    Honestly, if Darwin were so slow, then why is the #3 fastest supercomputer using it? Certainly there are Linux drivers for the G5 now--heck, 64-bit support is now standard in kernel 2.6.

    BTW, Linux is far good for more than just a server. It makes the core of many excellent operating system distributions. It is an excellent and rapidly improving embeddable operating system (in fact, I think it will overtake WindowsCE at the rate its going). It now has even hooks for the beginnings of a serious real-time operating system.
    • FileVault performance tax
      2003-12-26 21:19:45  anonymous2 [View]

      I can't comment on NT but the original CMU and OSF Mach are ukernels, Apple xnu is not in the true sense. The FreeBSD "server" is not a real Mach server but bolts directly onto Apple's own variant of Mach so there is really no major slowdown there. Nevertheless, there is some overhead with making BSD system calls. Depending on what you want to do, task_self() might be more appropriate than getpid(). I'm also not sure how you actually timed the system calls. FYI, there are no release-quality kernels that will leave you with a working G5 Linux system, there is no accelerated OpenGL on NVIDIA cards and ppc64 64-bit Linux is not in any sense standard in kernel 2.6. Linux probably makes a poor choice if you want to do anything serious on your (Apple) ppc. As for the TLB overhead etc. pick up a good book on computer architecture and the ppc user manuals: the code for managing the TLB is very standard (read: same) across any operating system that will run on the ppc.
      • FileVault performance tax
        2004-09-29 17:52:42  rhigginbo [View]

        Interesting Link:

        http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-ydlg5.html?ca=dgr-mw05LinxOnG5
      • FileVault performance tax
        2004-09-29 17:48:11  rhigginbo [View]

        Industry research shows that most of the performance difference related to Linux and OSX are impacted mostly by HFS+ performance and TCP/IP throughput. Gnosis Software (a Linux-oriented company) has performed Linux benchmarks which detail the primary differences in performance.

        (Not sure what release of OSX or which version [server or client] was used. But, this benchmark is a good point for discussion.)