I too feel this is a huge part of it, coupled with the fact that "basics" of last generation (a home you own, a stable job that doesn't overwork you on evenings and weekends, affordable options to have a family) are also being priced out of many peoples lives. You feel like you're not matching what your parents and cultural artifacts tell you you should be achieving at your age, and at the same time you're flooded with influencers on ski trips to Japan or snorkelling in Jamaica every other weekend, and it's a perfect recipe for feeling bad about your life no matter how well off you're doing compared to yesterdays median statistic.
It's hard to get a comparable read since you don't get a clean split in the #s between what would be public spending vs. private spending if the US + a "Medicare for All" type system, but including the % of GDP spent in US on healthcare overall, it would put government expenditures as % of GDP on par with most other countries in the world that do provide universal health care:
France certainly has a higher % of expenditure to GDP than other comparable countries, and you would expect the USA health care to GDP % to decline to be more inline with other countries with universal coverage if a national program was introduced.
However, because France is still offering more public social services and benefits overall vs. a "USA + universal health" that it's hard to make broad claims either way about who is wasting more money or which system is more effective for citizens based purely on % of government expenditure to total GDP.
Underrated acquisition. Gives NVIDIA a whole lineup of inference-focused hardware that iirc can retrofit into existing air cooled data centres without needing cooling upgrades. Great hedge against the lower-end $$$-per-watt and watt-per-token competition that has been focused purely at inference.
I can only speculate, but maybe they're referring to the same thing Andrew Morton meant when he described ZFS as a rampant layering violation.
ie ZFS isn't just a file system. It's a volume manager, raid and file system rolled into one holistic system vs for example LVM + MD + ext4.
And (again I'm only speculating) in their micro kernel design want to have individual components running separately to layer together a complete solution.
It's only a rampant layering violation if you mandate the use of external layers like Linux device mapper as the only allowed way... Or you haven't actually read through the code and assume based on external user interface.
No, ZFS is not "monolithic".
It's just that on the outside you have a well integrated user interface that does not expose you to SPA (block layer), ZIO (IO layer, that one is a bit intersectional but still a component others call), DMU (object storage), and finally ZVOL (block storage emulated over DMU) and ZPL (POSIX-compatible filesystem on top of DMU) or Lustre-ZFS (Lustre metadata and object stores implented on top of DMU). There are also a few utility components that are effectively libraries (AVL trees, key-value data serialization library, etc)
In the Linux world you need to be hard to use in order to prove how pure you are. Anything that is actually easy to use is always considered unpure and bad.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, considering how people torture themselves with calculating SSD cache sector offsets by hand so they can imitate 1% of ZFS's feature set with LVM2.
> when he described ZFS as a rampant layering violation
I read some blog posts back in the day about why they did this and it sounded a lot like those layers were more historical accidents or something.
You can turn it around and say that ZFS is a full stack filesystem (or vertically integrated if you will) and it should be pretty obvious that a rethink on that level can have big advantages.
Good question. I don't know about other microkernels, but NetBSD is a small kernel that supports ZFS. The support has been there since the 4.0.5 and 5.3[0], possibly earlier too. I'm not adept at navigating the mailing lists here, but I imagine a good place to learn about the challenges of porting ZFS to a smaller kernel would be the NetBSD and ZFS lists from that era (2008-2009). What NetBSD does today is use a 'zfs' modlue that depends on a 'solaris' kernel modile. The dependency of Solaris primitives is probably one of the major challenges with porting ZFS to any kernel. FWIW, somehow a ZFS port for the "hybrid" kernel in Windows also exists[1].
Who is calling it a microkernel? The post youre replying to calls it a “small kernel” - that does not imply it’s a microkernel tho, right? I didn’t think size has anything to do with it.
I came back to maybe delete my comments as I felt I might have came off harsh, esp before I saw the dead comment chain. No ill will, was confused as well I think.
“I don’t know about other microkernels” implies that NetBSD is also a microkernel. It is not.
Microkernel is not a size distinction. NetBSD kernel may even be smaller in terms of LOC or binary size than some microkernels. Idk. But that is beside the point.
Microkernel is an *architecture*. It is a name for a specific type of kernel design, which NetBSD is not.
"Maybe you should read it more careful, instead adding nothing to the discussion" is crossing into personal attack. So is "Read more, comment less." from your other post in this thread.
Generally speaking, it's not against HN's rules to be wrong. How could it be? We're all wrong about nearly everything. But it is against HN's rules to post disrespectfully, put others down, etc. - for the obvious reason that it poisons community discussion, plus is unnecessary.
It's especially important to follow those rules when one is right about something, because when a post contains both correctness and poison, the poison has has the side effect of discrediting the truth. That is bad for all of us (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
I don’t think it’s microkernels in general but their microkernel design which wants as much as possible in userspace. They want each component to have its own memory space. ZFS blurs the layers between filesystem and the volume management. This kinda bothers layers of abstraction model folks. And I assume combined with their posix like model it just sorta clashes with what they want to do. Not impossible to integrate, but they want something a little different.
I particularly don't buy it because ZFS used to have a FUSE build, and I'm pretty sure there's at least one company still running it in userspace in some form (something for k8s, IIRC?)
I guess? I'm not personally convinced that even 1 ZFS service per zpool would be a serious problem, but I can see why it would be considered unideal to a microkernel designer.
If I had to guess, it is because ZFS likes to insert itself into things beyond just being a filesystem. It is one of the reasons ZFS notoriously works poorly with database engines, which have a tendency to bypass or ignore the filesystem (for good reason). It is a design choice on the part of ZFS.
"Half of all developers have below-average diligence" - a lot of this is also not developer choice, but environmental. So much software is developed and maintained in very constrained economic environments, often by solo devs who also have other responsibilities. The choice here often is trading some "diligence" for "meeting business requirements in the time / budget constraints" imposed by your employer.
