home | login | register | DMCA | contacts | help | donate |      

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


my bookshelf | genres | recommend | rating of books | rating of authors | reviews | new | | collections | | | add



1.5.2. Flexibility

The second key design issue is flexibility. It is important that the system be flexible because we are just beginning to learn about how to build distributed systems. It is likely that this process will incur many false starts and considerable backtracking. Design decisions that now seem reasonable may later prove to be wrong. The best way to avoid problems is thus to keep one's options open.

Flexibility, along with transparency, is like parenthood and apple pie: who could possibly be against them? It is hard to imagine anyone arguing in favor of an inflexible system. However, things are not as simple as they seem. There are two schools of thought concerning the structure of distributed systems. One school maintains that each machine should run a traditional kernel that provides most services itself. The other maintains that the kernel should provide as little as possible, with the bulk of the operating system services available from user-level servers. These two models, known as the monolithic kernel and microkernel, respectively, are illustrated in Fig. 1-14.


Distributed operating systems

Fig. 1-14. (a) Monolithic kernel. (b) Microkernel.


The monolithic kernel is basically today's centralized operating system augmented with networking facilities and the integration of remote services. Mostsystem calls are made by trapping to the kernel, having the work performed there, and having the kernel return the desired result to the user process. With this approach, most machines have disks and manage their own local file systems. Many distributed systems that are extensions or imitations of UNIX use this approach because UNIX itself has a large, monolithic kernel.

If the monolithic kernel is the reigning champion, the microkernel is the up-and-coming challenger. Most distributed systems that have been designed from scratch use this method. The microkernel is more flexible because it does almost nothing. It basically provides just four minimal services:

1.An interprocess communication mechanism.

2.Some memory management.

3.A small amount of low-level process management and scheduling.

4.Low-level input/output.

In particular, unlike the monolithic kernel, it does not provide the file system, directory system, full process management, or much system call handling. The services that the microkernel does provide are included because they are difficult or expensive to provide anywhere else. The goal is to keep it small.

All the other operating system services are generally implemented as user-level servers. To look up a name, read a file, or obtain some other service, the user sends a message to the appropriate server, which then does the work and returns the result. The advantage of this method is that it is highly modular: there is a well-defined interface to each service (the set of messages the server understands), and every service is equally accessible to every client, independent of location. In addition, it is easy to implement, install, and debug new services, since adding or changing a service does not require stopping the system and booting a new kernel, as is the case with a monolithic kernel. It is precisely this ability to add, delete, and modify services that gives the microkernel its flexibility. Furthermore, users who are not satisfied with any of the official services are free to write their own.

As a simple example of this power, it is possible to have a distributed system with multiple file servers, one supporting MS-DOS file service and another supporting UNIX file service. Individual programs can use either or both, if they choose. In contrast, with a monolithic kernel, the file system is built into the kernel, and users have no choice but to use it.

The only potential advantage of the monolithic kernel is performance. Trapping to the kernel and doing everything there may well be faster than sending messages to remote servers. However, a detailed comparison of two distributed operating systems, one with a monolithic kernel (Sprite), and one with a microkernel (Amoeba), has shown that in practice this advantage is nonexistent(Douglis et al., 1991). Other factors tend to dominate, and the small amount of time required to send a message and get a reply (typically, about 1 msec) is usually negligible. As a consequence, it is likely that microkernel systems will gradually come to dominate the distributed systems scheme, and monolithic kernels will eventually vanish or evolve into microkernels. Perhaps future editions of Silberschatz and Galvin's book on operating systems (1994) will feature hummingbirds and swifts on the cover instead of stegasauruses and triceratopses.


1.5.1.Transparency | Distributed operating systems | 1.5.3. Reliability