Re: Real Operating Systems That Take Control
From: f0dder (f0dder_spicedham_at_flork.dk)
Date: 07/08/04
- Next message: Betov: "Re: Making a hash of things..."
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- In reply to: Jim Carlock: "Real Operating Systems That Take Control"
- Next in thread: hutch--: "Re: Why RosAsm Breaks on a large number of symbols"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:34:55 +0200
> So "real operating systems" grab complete control of all processes
> and limit the time the processor can spend with each process ? I
> can see something like that being effective, but I can also see that
> it could slow down disk operations and screen writes and possibly
> other hardware i/o.
>
On NT, you have to have correct privileges to change your process and/or
thread priorities to high and realtime. If you don't have this privilege,
the call won't fail, but you'll only get the highest of the "dynamic"
priorities - which is not enough to lock up the system.
When a thread runs at realtime and eats up the CPU, other realtime threads
won't be scheduled - but IRQs are still processed. If you're interested
in learning more about this, have a look at Solomon and Russinovich's
"inside windows 2000", it's a very good read if you want to design well
working applications for windows. And an interesting read even if you're
just a "power-user" :-)
> I'm very much interested in this topic, and I'm thinking that there
> would be have to be quite a bit of memory buffering to speed
> hardware i/o up.
>
Unfortunately, windows is a bit conservative wrt. the use of filesystem
cache :(. There's a registry setting (LargeSystemCache=1, on XP and more
recent you can even set this from the GUI), which works great, but
unfortunately I can't use it after I got a radeon card - the ATi catalyst
drivers have some _serious_ issues with this setting that can end up in
_massive_ data corruption (and almost cost me 30+ gigs of data.)
> I'm curious about what a real operating system is... are you
> referring to Linux or Unix ?
>
NT, BSD, Mac OS X, (to some degree) linux, springs to mind. Win9x certainly
ISN'T a real OS, it's a monstrously overgrown dos extender full of 16bit
code and no security... but it does the trick on older hardware :)
(Of course NT4 runs perfectly on a mmx200 w/64 megs of ram, and that does
qualify as 'old' to me, and I'd certainly rather be on NT4 than win9x...
but to each his own)
- Next message: Betov: "Re: Making a hash of things..."
- Previous message: Betov: "Re: turn off for learning assembler"
- In reply to: Jim Carlock: "Real Operating Systems That Take Control"
- Next in thread: hutch--: "Re: Why RosAsm Breaks on a large number of symbols"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
