From: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: inefficient RT vs efficient non-RT
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 02:58:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030112075844.GA16050@mark.mielke.cc> (raw)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 11:09:13PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> No, I've never used vxWorks, I just understand the difference
> between an RTOS and a non-RTOS and how to choose the right tool for
> the job. If an application can run on an OS that is not an RTOS, it
> almost always does. RTOSes are usually used where you *must* *have*
> guarantees.
The parts that you are not considering are:
1) Many RT applications only need a small portion of RT.
2) VxWorks adds a much more significant hit to performance that many
consider to be reasonable. In fact, the hit is such that given the
*SAME* capacity requirements, there is evidence that non-RT Linux
can be sufficiently faster than RT VxWorks that 99.999+% can be
'guaranteed' and still have time to spare.
I'm talking actual experiments by actual RT application designers. The
product in question, I believe, is a CDMA cellular telephone switch.
You are talking theory from a text book. I'm talking practice from people
who are frustrated with VxWorks on a daily basis.
Don't assume that because it has 'RT' on the label, that it makes it
beyond comparison with a non-RT operating system. Any operating system
can be poorly written, and that includes RT systems that successfully
guarantee system calls to require a fixed amount of time to
complete. The fixed amount of time to complete may be fixed, but it
may also be unreasonable high.
Think about it logically -- if I can process 5X as much data as you can on
the same hardware, but I can't guarantee that *at* 5X no data will be lost,
but then, I only run at 1X (the same speed as you), how many packets have
a chance of being lost?
In theory, a few, perhaps more. In practice, it's really hard to say,
and I trust experimental data from my peers over theory from
you. Sorry. :-)
When you've run your software on VxWorks, and then run your software on
Linux, and you have numbers (experience + numbers vs theory) then I'll
take your word over theirs.
Until then, I don't plan to touch VxWorks. I much prefer encouraging
Linux+RT to out-perform VxWorks, and be able to prove it. (For all I know,
they may have done this already -- from what I have heard about VxWorks,
it can't be that hard...)
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
next reply other threads:[~2003-01-12 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-12 7:58 Mark Mielke [this message]
2003-01-12 8:04 ` inefficient RT vs efficient non-RT Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-12 8:28 ` Mark Mielke
2003-01-12 15:05 ` Rob Wilkens
2003-01-12 15:39 ` RT - who cares.. (Off Topic) Rob Wilkens
2003-01-13 9:38 ` inefficient RT vs efficient non-RT Giuliano Pochini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030112075844.GA16050@mark.mielke.cc \
--to=mark@mark.mielke.cc \
--cc=davids@webmaster.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox