Develop Reference

Kernel bypass with Java 7?

I read in a couple of comments on SO Java 7 supports kernel bypass. However, when googling the topic I did not see any immediate examples of this.
Does anyone have an example of Java 7 performing kernel bypass? I'd be interested to see it

The Answers to this related Question mention that SolarFlare has Java bindings: Networking with Kernel Bypass in Java.
As far as Java 7 is concerned, there is no support for this kind of thing in the core libraries. Kernel bypass is too system / vendor specific for inclusion in the standard APIs.
You can do other things to improve network throughput in Java that don't involve kernel bypass. For instance using the NIO Buffer and Channel APIs ... However, your typical Java "framework" tends to get in the way of this ... by only exposing Stream / Reader and other high level I/O abstractions to "application" code.
(I would also opine that if you have an application where network latency and throughput are critical enough for kernel bypass to be worthwhile, you should use a programming language that is "closer to the metal". Java is better for applications where the biggest problem is application complexity ... NOT moving lots of bits through the network fast.)

Take a look at the Onload Extensions API JNI Wrapper on github. The author seems to specialize in kernel bypass.

Kernel bypassing is a method of avoiding the kernel when reading/writing to external data sources, e.g. files or networking.
Instead, you directly access the data storage without letting all the bytes running through the OS kernel. This is usually faster but also less secure, since the entire process is not supervised by the operating system anymore.
Assumption:
In regard to Java, the kernel (could) represent(s) the JVM.
I have found a very good article on this.

In C++ or Java is there a way to get the CPU usage?

I'd like to write a little program just to display the CPU usage as a percent, like the task manager does. I know intermediate C++ and Java. Is there a way to do this with either language? If so, perhaps a short example? I saw some page of a C++ command, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
I'm using Windows 7 on one computer and XP on the other. As for the multiple core response, I simply want to display the CPU usage percent as the task manager does, even with a multiple core processor.

double sysLoad = ManagementFactory.
getOperatingSystemMXBean().
getSystemLoadAverage();
does not work on every platform,
returns an average load of the past one minute
EDIT:
Recently found this one
http://sellmic.com/blog/2011/07/21/hidden-java-7-features-cpu-load-monitoring/
In Java 7 you can use com.sun.management package to get process load or system load.
usage:
OperatingSystemMXBean osBean = ManagementFactory
.getPlatformMXBean(com.sun.management.OperatingSystemMXBean.class);
// What % CPU load this current JVM is taking, from 0.0-1.0
System.out.println(osBean.getProcessCpuLoad());
// What % load the overall system is at, from 0.0-1.0
System.out.println(osBean.getSystemCpuLoad());

there are some system call functions provided in "windows.h", such as GetProcessorInfo(), CallNTPowerInformation(), GetTickCount(), QueryPerformanceFrequency(), QueryPerformanceCounter() and so on. You can google them, or find them in MSDN. I hope this answer can help you.

The answer is going to be platform specific, and differs between the Java and C++ cases. At some level you need to interface with OS specific APIs to extract the statistics. There are four possible approaches:
Call an appropriate external system monitoring command (system specific) and "scrape" the output of the command. You can do this from Java or C++.
In C++ (or using JNI / JNA in Java ... if you really have to), make calls on the OS-specific native APIs that provide the information used by the external system monitoring.
In Java, use some existing 3rd-party library that deals with the system specific JNI/JNA stuff. Possible examples include JavaSysMon and SIGAR ... though I can't make specific recommendations.
You could use the Java monitoring APIs ... but they don't provide enough information. You can get information about this processes resource usage, and the overall load average, but you can't get information about other processes.
Now the problem with all of the above (except, possibly, the last one) is that porting to a new platform requires work.

CPU usage is an operating system property, not a language property. The way to retrieve it would be specific to the OS you're using (which you fail to identify).
In addition, "CPU usage" is a very nebulous term anymore, with multiple cores, et al.

In Java you can do it using JavaSysMon

Assuming you're using Windows system, you can use Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI). It's powerful once you get it working. I never did it using Java. Of course, it's easier with C# .NET.
A good link is WMI info
If you try this, please tell me. I might be interested in helping you since this is also my interest.

IF you are using the Linux system, consider using shell scripting, like bash. The reason is shell scripting is powerful for operating system calls, like getting process ID and usage (pid command). And IT technicians are more comfortable with bash scripts than Java or C++.

Solaris: Mounting a file system on an application's handlers

When mounting an NFS filesystem, all data handling goes through the nfs client. How can I write my own handlers to use something other than NFS?
An alternative would be a localhost NFS server but that seams awfully inefficient
Edit
Example of what should happen
Normally with a filesystem you get: app reads/writes filesystem, Solaris sees where it is mounted and if it is disk then it reads/writes the disk. If it is software mirror it reads and writes to the mirror software. If it it is NFS it reads and writes to a remote NFS server. I want it to read and write to a custom storage software instead of any of the above mentioned options.
Our storage software is for storing files that applications use, it is geared towards large or frequently replaced chunks of data that are not stored in a database. It also includes certain flexibility specific to our company.
Old/existing applications don't know about our new software. All they know to do is read/write a directory. We could tell Solaris that the directory was hosted on NFS and then the NFS server translates and connects to the storage software. We would prefer to tell Solaris about our new program which Solaris has never heard of and then teach Solaris how to talk to our program.

To me this sounds like you'd have to create a pseudo file system. Solaris uses VFS (Virtual File System), under which you can use different filesystems presented as one uniform structure to userspace. Wheither you mount a UFS or NFS or WHATEVER filesystem, users and applications can use filesystem-agnostic tools to interact with VFS.
That means that what you need to create a pseudo file system; a filesystem that manages to handle the vnode and vfs operations (VFS syscall interface), such as read(), write() etc and tie them, (decide what to do when someone opens a particular file etc), to a database-backend of your choice.
Read more:
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/solaris_internals_ch14_file_system_framework.pdf
Sounds like a big task...
Regards,
jgr

You might want to look at some CIFS servers. Alfresco has JCIFS, which is a CIFS server library in Java. It lets you present resources as files, as if they're on a Windows system. So, that means that programs can "mount" these CIFS servers, and you can publish data from your Database via that mechanism.
I have not used it, but that sounds like what you want to do and perhaps something you may want to look in to.
There's also FUSE which lets you create custom file systems in "user mode" rather than having to hack the kernel. It works on Unix and Mac OS, there may be a Windows version as well. This can, in theory, do anything.
For example, there are instances that let you mount a remote system over SSH using a FUSE system. These tend to be written in C/C++.

NFS isn't about mounting a directory on software but mounting a remote share on a directory. Whether the storage device is remote or not doesn't matter that much, it is still through layers of kernel software. Solaris use VFS to provide the first layer. You should implement the underlying one. That would be quite a difficult task for someone already familiar with VFS. As you obviously are not familiar with writing kernel code, I would be very pessimistic about your project ...
What I would suggest you to do instead would be a simpler and less risky approach. Implement an interposition library that would intercept the application I/O code (open, read, write, close, and the likes or perhaps libc fopen, fwrite, you have to figure out what is the best location to interpose) and call your storage software instead.
Here is a simple example of the process:
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/lib_interposers.html

Is it possible to gather information about computer hardware using Java?

If so, then how? I'm doing a team project for school. I thought that Java couldn't actually access hardware directly, since that would make it hard to be cross-platform. I need to know this, because after some quick Googling, I haven't found anything, and my team members(who want to do this and want to use Java) seem unsure of how to proceed- after apparently much more searching than I've done.

Your right in that you can't access hardware directly from Java (unless your calling on native code, but that's not what your after) since it runs in a sandboxed environment, namely the Java Virtual Machine (JVM).
However you can get some basic info from the JVM that it gathers from the underlying OS.
Take a look at using Java to get OS-level system information

What you are looking for is SIGAR API
Overview
The Sigar API provides a portable interface for gathering system information such as:
System memory, swap, cpu, load
average, uptime, logins
Per-process memory, cpu, credential
info, state, arguments, environment,
open files
File system detection and metrics
Network interface detection,
configuration info and metrics
TCP and UDP connection tables
Network route table
This information is available in most operating systems, but each OS has their own way(s) providing it.
SIGAR provides developers with one API to access this information regardless of the underlying platform.
The core API is implemented in pure C with bindings currently implemented for Java, Perl, Ruby, Python, Erlang, PHP and C#.

The amount of info you'll be able to get using native Java API's is pretty small, as your program generally only knows about the VM it's sitting on.
You can, however, call out to the command line, run native apps, and parse the results. It's not particularly good form in a Java app, however, as you lose the cross-platform benefits usually associated with the language.

You can get some basic information regarding the Processor/s using System.getEnv().
You can also use Runtime.getRuntime() - See the response of R. Kettelerij for details.
Another option is to use JMX. The MemoryMXBean for example provides some information regarding the RAM usage (heap and non-heap).

To anyone looking for a library that is still being maintained as of 2023 check out OSHI

Is it possible to code a device driver in Java?

Introduction
I heard something about writing device drivers in Java (heard as in "with my ears", not from the internet) and was wondering... I always thought device drivers operated on an operating system level and thus must be written in the same language as the OS (thus mostly C I suppose)
Questions
Am I generally wrong with this
assumption? (it seems so)
How can a driver in an "alien"
language be used in the OS?
What are the requirements (from a
programming language point of view)
for a device driver anyway?
Thanks for reading

There are a couple of ways this can be done.
First, code running at "OS level" does not need to be written in the same language as the OS. It merely has to be able to be linked together with OS code. Virtually all languages can interoperate with C, which is really all that's needed.
So language-wise, there is technically no problem. Java functions can call C functions, and C functions can call Java functions. And if the OS isn't written in C (let's say, for the sake of argument that it's written in C++), then the OS C++ code can call into some intermediate C code, which forwards to your Java, and vice versa. C is pretty much a lingua franca of programming.
Once a program has been compiled (to native code), its source language is no longer relevant. Assembler looks much the same regardless of which language the source code was written in before compilation. As long as you use the same calling convention as the OS, it's no problem.
A bigger problem is runtime support. Not a lot of software services are available in the OS. There usually is no Java virtual machine, for example. (There is no reason why there technically couldn't be, but usually, but usually, it's safe to assume that it's not present).
Unfortunately, in its "default" representation, as Java bytecode, a Java program requires a lot of infrastructure. It needs the Java VM to interpret and JIT the bytecode, and it needs the class library and so on.
But there are two ways around this:
Support Java in the kernel. This would be an unusual step, but it could be done.
Or compile your Java source code to a native format. A Java program doesn't have to be compiled to Java bytecode. You could compile it to x86 assembler. The same goes for whatever class libraries you use. Those too could be compiled all the way to assembler. Of course, parts of the Java class library requires certain OS features that won't be available, but then use of those classes could be avoided.
So yes, it can be done. But it's not straightforward, and it's unclear what you'd gain.
Of course another problem may be that Java won't let you access arbitrary memory locations, which would make a lot of hardware communication pretty tricky. But that could be worked around too, perhaps by calling into very simple C functions which simply return the relevant memory areas as arrays for Java to work on.

Writing Solaris Device Drivers in Java covers a A RAM disk device written in Java.
Another one for Linux. Goes more in depth on why you might want a DD in Java as well (since some people were wondering by the looks of the other posts and comments)

A device driver could be a lot of things
I actually write device drivers in java for a living: drivers for industrial devices, such as scales or weighing devices, packaging machines, barcode scanners, weighing bridges, bag and box printers, ... Java is a really good choice here.
Industrial devices are very different from your home/office devices (e.g. scanners, printers). Especially in manufacturing (e.g. food), companies opt more and more for a centralized server which runs an MES application (e.g. developed in Java) The MES server needs to interface with the devices of the production line, but also contains business logic. Java is a language that can do both.
Where your home/office devices are often built-in to your computer or connected with an USB cable, these industrial devices usually use Ethernet or RS232 connectors. So, in essence, pretty much every language could do the job.
There is not much standardisation in this area yet. Most vendors prefer to create their own protocol for their devices. After all they are hardware builders, not software geniuses. The result is that there is a high diversity of protocols. Some vendors prefer simple plain-text protocols, but others prefer complex binary protocols with CRC codes, framing, ... Sometimes they like to stack multiple protocols (e.g. a vendor specific handshaking algorithm on top of an OPC layer). A strong OOP language has a lot of advantages here.
E.g. I've seen java print at a continuous speed of 100ms/cycle. This includes generating a unique label, sending it to the printer, receiving a confirmation, printing it on paper and applying it to the product using air pressure.
In summary, the power of java:
It is useful for both business logic as complex interfacing.
It is just as reliable in communication with sockets as C.
Some drivers can benifit from Java's OOP power.
Java is fast enough.

It's not impossible, but possibly hard and possibly makes not much sense.
Possible is it, because Java is a normal programming language, as long as you have some way to access the data, it's no problem. Normally in a modern OS the kernel has a layer to allow raw access to hardware in some way. Also already exist drivers in userspace, at least the userspace-part should be no problem to implement in Java.
It makes possibly not too much sense, because the kernel has to start a JVM to execute the driver. Also JVM-implementations normally eat up much memory.
You could also use Java-code compiled to be executed natively on the platform (not with the help of a JVM). This is usually not that efficient, but it could be suitable for a device-driver.
The question is, does it make sense to implement the driver in Java? Or stated in another way: What is the benefit you hope for, if you use Java for implementing the driver instead of another alternative? If you can answer this question, you should find a way to make it possible.
At the end the hint to JNode, a project that tries to implement a complete OS purely based on Java.

You have a too narrow view of device drivers.
I have written such device drivers on top of MOST in an automotive application. A more widespread use might be drivers for USB devices if Java ever gets a decent USB library.
In these cases there is a generic low-level protocol which is handled in native code, and the Java driver handles the device specifics (data formats, state machines, ...).

For the motivation, please remember that there is plenty of fast languages which are better than C for programming; they might not be as fast as C, but they are safe languages: if you make a mistake you don't get undefined behavior. And "undefined behavior" includes executing arbitrary code supplied by some attacker which formats your HD.
Many functional languages are usually compiled to native code.
Device drivers contain the most bugs in an OS kernel - I know that for Linux (Linus Torvalds and others keep saying so) and I heard that for Windows. While for a disk or Ethernet driver you need top-notch performance, and while in Linux drivers today are the bottleneck for 10G Ethernet or SSD disks, most drivers don't need that much speed - all computers wait at the same speed.
That's why there are various projects to allow writing drivers which run outside of the kernel, even if that causes a slowdown; when you can do that, you can use whatever language you want; you will just then need Java bindings for the hardware control library you use - if you were writing the driver in C, you would still have a library with C bindings.
For drivers in kernel mode proper, there are two problems that I've not yet seen mentioned:
Garbage Collection, and that's a tough requirement. You need to write an in-kernel Garbage Collector; some GC algorithms rely on Virtual Memory, and you cannot use them. Moreover, you probably need to scan the whole OS memory to find roots for the GC. Finally, I would only trust an algorithm guaranteeing (soft) real-time GC, which would make the overhead even bigger.
Reading the paper which was mentioned about Java Device Drivers on top of Linux, they just give up, and require programmers to manually free memory. They try to argue that this will not compromise safety, but I don't think their argument is convincing - it's not even clear whether they understand that Garbage Collection is needed for a safe language.
Reflection and class loading. A full Java implementation, even when running native code, needs to be able to load new code. This is a library you can avoid, but if you have an interpreter or JIT compiler in kernel (and there's no real reason that makes it technically impossible).
Performance. The paper about a JVM on Linux is very bad, and their performance numbers are not convincing - indeed, they test a USB 1.1 network driver, and then show that performance is not so bad! However, given enough effort something better can surely be done.
Two last things:
I'd like to mention Singularity, which is a complete OS written in a C# variant, with just a Hardware Abstraction Layer in a native language.
About picoJava, it's a bad idea to use it unless your system is a really memory constrained one, like a smart card. Cliff Click already explained why: it gives better performance to write a good JIT, and nowadays even smartphones can support that.

Have you perhaps heard a reference to the JDDK?
Writing a device driver 100% in Java is not possible without native code to provide the interaction between (1) the OS-specific driver entry points and conventions, and (2) the JVM instance. The JVM instance could be started "in-process" (and "in-process" may have different meanings depending on the OS and on whether the driver is a kernel-mode or user-mode driver), or as a separate user-land process with which a thin, native driver adaptation layer can communicate and onto which the said driver adaptation layer can offload actual user-land work.

It is possible to compile java code to hardware native (i.e. not JVM bytecode) instructions. See for instance GCJ. With this in hand, you're a lot closer to being able to compile device drivers than you were before.
I don't know how practical it is, though.

Possible?
Yes but only in special circumstances. Because you can write an operating system in Java and C#, and then, should be able to write device drivers for it. The memory hit to these drivers and operating systems would be substantial.
Probable?
Not likely. Atleast not in the world of Windows or MacOS or even Linux... At least not anytime soon. Because languages like C# and Java depend on the CLR and JVM. The way these languages work means that they cannot effectively be loaded into ring0.
Also, the performance hit would be rather large if managed languages were employed in device drivers.

Device drivers have to be written in a language which can execute in the kernel, either compiled into it, or loaded as a module at runtime. This usually precludes writing device drivers in Java, but I suppose you theoretically could implement a JVM inside a device driver and let it execute Java code. Not that any sane person would want to do that.
On Linux there are several user-land (i.e. non-kernel) implementations of filesystems which uses a common abstraction layer called (fuse) which allows user-land programs to implement things which are typically done in the kernel.

The Windows Driver Foundation (WDF) is a Microsoft API that does allow both User and Kernel mode device drivers to be written. This is being done today, and it is now compatible with w2k and later (used to not have w2k as a supported target). There is no reason that JNI calls can't be made to do some work in the JRE . . . ( assuming that JNI is still the way to call Java from C/C++ . . . my knowledge is dated in that arena). This could be an interesting way to have high level algorithms directly munch on data from a USB pipe for something to that effect . . . cool stuff!

PCIe user space device drivers can be written in Pure Java. See JVerbs for details about memory-based direct hardware access, in the context of OFED. This is a technique that can be used to create very high performance systems.
You can examine the PCI bus to determine the memory regions for a given device, what ports it has, etc. The memory regions can be mapped into the JVM's process.
Of course, you're responsible for implementing everything yourself.
I didn't say easy. I said possible. ;)
See also Device Drivers in User Space, which discusses using the UIO framework to build a user space driver.

First of all, note that I'm not an expert on device drivers (though I wrote a few myself back in the day), much less an expert on Java.
Let's leave the fact that writing device drivers in a high-level language is not a good idea (for performance and possibly many other reasons) aside for a moment, and answer your question.
You can write device drivers in almost any language, at least in theory.
However, most device drivers need to do plenty of low-level stuff like handling interrupts and communicating with the OS using the OS APIs and system calls, which I believe you can't do in Java.
But, if your device communicates using, say, a serial port or USB, and if the OS doesn't necessarily need to be aware of the device (only your application will access the device*), then you can write the driver in any language that provides the necessary means to access the device.
So for example you probably can't write a SCSI card driver in Java, but you can write a driver for a proprietary control device, USB lava lamp, license dongle, etc.
* The obvious question here is, of course, does that count as a driver?