Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:53:38 -0500 From: Rayson Ho <raysonlogin@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Maninya M <maninya@gmail.com> Subject: Re: OS support for fault tolerance Message-ID: <CAHwLALMYBLdTzJxxBjdAhA9eG-oGxoCCMp1sXHRViZ6om-Au_g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F3AE7D9.8020204@freebsd.org> References: <CAC46K3mc=V=oBOQnvEp9iMTyNXKD1Ki_%2BD0Akm8PM7rdJwDF8g@mail.gmail.com> <4F3A9266.9050905@freebsd.org> <CAHwLALOe1Zq86_AdO=D9pEEmOi_kT%2BrORMTXR-xEvhLX0Pt5gw@mail.gmail.com> <4F3AE7D9.8020204@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > True, but you can't guarantee that a cpu is going to fail in a way that you > can detect like that. what if the clock just stops.. The question is, are we planning to handle >95% of the errors for >99% of the hardware we run on, or are we really planning to spend years trying to design something that would require special hardware support? On the zSeries mainframe, the instructions are executed in locked steps on the redundant instruction pipeline, and if the results don't match, the instruction is re-executed again. This happens on every load and store. Now, if you want software to do the same thing, you will need to somehow checkpoint the state of not only the processor, but the memory as well, or else if the bad processor stores something to memory you will still get corrupted data. Not only that the kernel becomes very complicated, it would make the system very slow. And what if the checkpointing code is executed by faulty processors?? IIRC, processors & disks don't usually just fail. That's the whole idea behind SMART, and Fault Management in Solaris & other kernels. http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+fm/ Rayson ================================= Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/ Scalable Grid Engine Support Program http://www.scalablelogic.com/ > I believe that even those systems that > support cpu deactivation on > error only catch some percentage of the problems, and that sometimes it was > more of > "bring up the system without cpu X after it all crashed in flames". > > tandem and other systems in the old day s used to be able to cope with dying > cpus pretty well > but they had support from to to bottom and the software was written with > 'clustering' in mind. > > > > > > >> Rayson >> >> ================================= >> Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine >> http://gridscheduler.sourceforge.net/ >> >> Scalable Grid Engine Support Program >> http://www.scalablelogic.com/ >> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHwLALMYBLdTzJxxBjdAhA9eG-oGxoCCMp1sXHRViZ6om-Au_g>