From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 07:01:24 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 4ACB116A4CE for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C7B43D39 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:01:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from estrabd@yahoo.com) Received: from server3.messagingengine.com (server3.internal [10.202.2.134]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6F54E167D; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by server3.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 4F73715A017; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:01:11 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2 (F2.71; T1.001; A1.60; B2.21; Q2.21) From: "Brett D. Estrade" To: "Andy Sporner" , "freebsd-cluster" Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:01:11 -0800 X-Sasl-Enc: 9NppT1NIqrFqk31y0lyNXw 1076425271 Message-Id: <1076425271.16867.180799810@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <187a6c3bb6bd5002259b39e485140752@202.157.183.139> <20040210015115.C17961@knight.ixsystems.net> <4028CC66.80300@nentec.de> In-Reply-To: <4028CC66.80300@nentec.de> Subject: Re: Clustering with FreeBSD 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, 10 Feb 2004 15:01:24 -0000 What are the thoughts of DragonFlyBSD's goal of being able to create a single virtual machine (1 cpu, presumably) out of many individual boxes? Brett On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:19:50 +0100, "Andy Sporner" said: > Hi, > > It is a different subject and I sort of hate threads that are misleading. > > So far it hasn't happened yet, but before it can. :-) The clustering > that > I am offering is *NOT* Beowulf-like. It is more geared towards > Internet Application HA. In other words--server X dies, what should > server Y and Z do to make sure that the stuff on server X does not have > to wait for server X to recover. > > Somewhere else on my site I have a utility called FREP. In my test > area in my lab I have the two things integrated. > > There is in Linux-Land a thing called sometime like "Remote raw > disk" (can't remember specifically what it is called) but it gives a > local device node for a remote device on another machine. > > What FREP does (at the moment only in the lab) is to syncronize > access to directories and replicate the changes done by the nodes. > The idea is to be able to have a 2-3 nodes running mail servers with > the spool directories replicated (locking is on the file basis). A > load balancer goes on the front and with this you have a scalabale > Mail server that is fault resiliant. > > A lot of people in the academic community are worried about > Beowulf and for correct reason, but there is an often neglected area > which is where Micro$oft is winning in the moment and that is > in the business end of the house. > > Cheers. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-cluster > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-cluster-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" ===== http://www.brettsbsd.net/~estrabd __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com