From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 23 01:29:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD8D16A4CE for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:29:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from knight.ixsystems.net (afg.ixsystems.net [206.40.55.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF3643D1F for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:29:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matto@knight.ixsystems.net) Received: from knight.ixsystems.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by knight.ixsystems.net (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAN191ZU058897; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:09:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from matto@knight.ixsystems.net) Received: (from matto@localhost) by knight.ixsystems.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id iAN191sI058896; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:09:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from matto) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:09:01 -0800 From: Matt Olander To: Justin Hopper Message-ID: <20041122170900.N31380@knight.ixsystems.net> References: <1101168686.3370.210.camel@work.gusalmighty.com> <20041122160912.L31380@knight.ixsystems.net> <1101170559.3370.223.camel@work.gusalmighty.com> <20041122163244.M31380@knight.ixsystems.net> <1101172829.15634.5.camel@work.gusalmighty.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1101172829.15634.5.camel@work.gusalmighty.com>; from jhopper@bsdhosting.net on Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:20:30PM -0800 cc: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Clustering options X-BeenThere: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Clustering FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:29:35 -0000 On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:20:30PM -0800, Justin Hopper wrote: > Interesting. So most blade servers allow for each node in the cluster > to run as it's own system, for example as a webserver, right? Yes. The blades are all independent systems that share common redundant infrastructure, such as switch, powersupply, etc. > Is there no appliance that allows for the details of the hardware to be > hidden from the OS and instead present to the OS a unified architecture, > like it's just one machine, but with the ability to add more nodes to > expand CPU, RAM, and disk? I guess this was my misunderstanding, as > this is what I assumed the blade systems did. I assume it would be > incredibly tricky to manage dynamically configurable hardware in the > operating system, but I also assumed that somebody had pulled it off, > but maybe not? Sure. You can buy a Sun Micro Fire 12k 36-way for about 1.3 million ;) An x86 based blade system combined with some opensource fail-over software will definitely do what you need though, and is quite a bit easier on the wallet! Regards, -matt > -- > Justin Hopper > UNIX Systems Engineer > BSDHosting.net > Hosting Division of Digital Oasys Inc. > http://www.bsdhosting.net -- Matt Olander (408)943-4100 Phone (408)943-4101 Fax www.offmyserver.com -- "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't" -Mark Twain