Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 June 2002 05:56, J Sloan wrote:
>>Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>>If I recall correctly, XFS makes an attempt to provide such realtime
>>>guarantees, or at least the Solaris version does.
>>When did Solaris ever support xfs?
>>>However, the operating
>>>system must be able to provide true realtime guarantees in order for the
>>>filesystem to provide them, and I doubt that the combination of XFS and
>>>Solaris can do that.
>>no, but the combination of xfs and irix has
> Heh, I can only protest that Oxymoron also missed that thinko..
>>made a lot of folks happy - and xfs/linux is coming along nicely as
> Improving the average latency of systems is a worthy goal, and there's
> no denying that 'sorta realtime' has its place, however it's no substitute
> for the real thing. A soft realtime system screws up only on occasion,
> but - bugs excepted - a hard realtime system *never* does.
Yes, in theory. You define hard realtime system in a clean room.
Even QNX4 couldn't provide hard realtime when creating new processes.
You had to start them beforehand - so you needed good system design.
The OS is just a small part of that.
Even vxworks had problems with priority inversion ... and so on.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:24 EST