Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:39:09 -0500 From: Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CGL/CGE Message-ID: <20071108053909.GD47765@menantico.com> In-Reply-To: <47323C93.2040506@cisco.com> References: <47323C93.2040506@cisco.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Randall Stewart wrote: > Just curious if anyone has done a comparison between > a Carrier Grade Environment (CGE) or a Carrier Grade Linux (CGL) > set of requirements and what a standard FreeBSD system offers? I'd done so quite a few years ago when the CGL spec was first being developed. If by "standard FreeBSD system" you mean the base system, then it didn't really meet any of the requirements. It could meet requirements with minimal work in performance, scalability, and interoperability, but was severely lacking in availability, security, and management interface requirements. The scheduler(s) realtime capabilities weren't flexible enough or implemented at all with regard to availability. Clustering isn't supported at all in the base system. GPL'ed tools are available in ports to cobble together a cluster, but not one that meets availability requirements. FreeBSD has just never focused on availability or security in a CGE-context. It just panics when it reaches any error from which it can't recover. It needs the ability to migrate processes off of a system that has reached an unrecoverable state, and the definition of "unrecoverable" could be tightened in some cases. Some of this has changed with the introductions of audit(4), devfs(5), and mac(4). At the time, FreeBSD didn't really have a concept of events, which it now does. Even with all of the benefits mac(4) provides, including the ability to run CGL code within the FreeBSD kernel, there are still some problems with security and availability. Any kernel process can bring down all of them whether it needs that ability or not. Subsystems really have no choice, but processes could in some cases. A lot has changed since I looked into this though. I see now the CGL spec will be 4.0 and it wasn't even 1.0 when I researched it so I really could be out to lunch on this one. But at the time, I thought good starting points would be to analyze every panic and to find unhandled assumptions (such as blindly writing to a device that may no longer be operational.) Any CGE-related work would benefit all FreeBSD users. -- Skip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071108053909.GD47765>