From owner-freebsd-cluster Fri Aug 18 1:41: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from lucifer.ninth-circle.org (lucifer.bart.nl [194.158.168.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CCD37B422 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:41:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by lucifer.ninth-circle.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA85049; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:40:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:40:56 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: Ronald G Minnich Cc: "freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Is this list active? Message-ID: <20000818104056.A84928@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <200008062041.QAA21285@sanson.reyes.somos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from rminnich@lanl.gov on Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 03:13:26PM -0600 Organisation: VIA Net.Works The Netherlands Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -On [20000806 23:15], Ronald G Minnich (rminnich@lanl.gov) wrote: >it's not real active, though we wish it were ... *nod* The problem is that both Eivind Eklund and me got sidetracked with other things which caused, at least for me, some lack of time for clustering. However, I am still looking at this, but my experience on clustering doesn't in the distance even match Eivind's. Just a curious question, I guess a keep alive type of system where a daemon per host sends out and acks keep alive messages is the easiest form of high availability, right? -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator VIA Net.Works The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.via-net-works.nl Truth is always exciting. Speak it, then. Life is boring without it... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Fri Aug 18 7:25:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCAF37B42C for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mini.acl.lanl.gov (root@mini.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.34]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA2304188; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:25:37 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (rminnich@localhost) by mini.acl.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA22876; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:25:37 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: mini.acl.lanl.gov: rminnich owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:25:37 -0600 (MDT) From: Ronald G Minnich X-Sender: rminnich@mini.acl.lanl.gov To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Cc: "freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Is this list active? In-Reply-To: <20000818104056.A84928@lucifer.bart.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > Just a curious question, I guess a keep alive type of system where a > daemon per host sends out and acks keep alive messages is the easiest > form of high availability, right? not so clear that it is useful, but it will work. We're ripping clusters up here. I.e. we have scraped all the software off, down to and including the BIOS, and are building them from the ground up. Everything we're doing will work fine with freebsd. see http://www.linuxbios.org ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message