| 1 |
Heath, |
| 2 |
There are actually patch sets out there that can give you "hard" real time |
| 3 |
linux systems. But they are going to cost you and more importantly have a |
| 4 |
huge learning curve, because linux wasn't designed as a RTOS. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Austin |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
-----Original Message----- |
| 9 |
From: Heath H Holcomb |
| 10 |
To: gentoo-embedded@l.g.o |
| 11 |
Sent: 5/12/2005 5:50 PM |
| 12 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-embedded] real time linux |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Others, please correct me if I'm wrong on anything. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The stock Linux kernel is not a RTOS (Real Time Operating System). |
| 17 |
There are |
| 18 |
patchs to the kernel that make it "soft" real time, but not "hard" real |
| 19 |
time. |
| 20 |
Some of the current kernel patch sets (CK sources for example) can get |
| 21 |
close |
| 22 |
to soft real time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What does your application need to do? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Check this company: |
| 27 |
http://www.lynuxworks.com/ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Heath Holcomb |
| 31 |
heath at bulah.com |
| 32 |
www.bulah.com |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
On 05 12 2005 07:37 pm, Francisco Ares wrote: |
| 36 |
> Anything in portage? Could not find it yet. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> And I have some doubts, if anyone could point me to some links, |
| 39 |
> specially benchmarks, I would really appreciate: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> How do I no if need a real time OS? |
| 42 |
> Should I rely only on the preemptibility of the 2.6 kernels? |
| 43 |
> Which real time Linux flavor is best for which types of applications? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Thanks a lot |
| 47 |
> Francisco |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives