Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:24:29 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Prevot <mprevot@freebsd.org>, NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IoT OS Message-ID: <56A2035D.7030201@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAP8Xrcv1f8j-eQuYW%2B%2By4zAn0=cxC_PR1J6hkdwS%2BA=vL47ASw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP8XrcszH-KroGv3nJo5AyH=Mh%2BAe6YhAKNi4SuEEs9ss9M8Rg@mail.gmail.com> <56A10892.2090308@rlwinm.de> <F37089F2-6467-4366-8AE9-C8BD0BF6E6F7@gmail.com> <CAP8Xrcv1f8j-eQuYW%2B%2By4zAn0=cxC_PR1J6hkdwS%2BA=vL47ASw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22/01/2016 2:08 AM, Mathieu Prevot wrote: > 2016-01-21 17:38 GMT+01:00 NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 08:34, Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/01/16 17:19, Mathieu Prevot wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I would like to connect several connected object (with homogeneous or >>>> heterogenous hardare: intel edison, samsung artik, apple AX, intel >> core, >>>> etc) so the calculation needs, the storage/memory, the connection, etc >> are >>>> decoupled; hence we can reach an ecosystem with several clouds. >>>> >>>> How do you recommend to reach that ? from the kernel, a module, or >>>> eventually a software ? >>> Your message contains neither enough information nor a precise enough >> question for anyone to provide you a helpful answer. >>> Please describe your problem in sufficient detail and reformulate your >> question. If you still think these mailing lists (current@ and hackers@) >> are a good audience for your question afterward ask them again. >> >> It depends on your workload and hardware requirements (there isn't a >> simple answer to your question because you didn't describe what you needed >> with concrete requirements). >> >> I would talk to cem@. He's working on ioat(4) on head for us ($work). >> Thanks, >> -NGie >> > Say all objects are connected peer to peer with wifi, some of them are > connected to internet through gsm network or wifi to a box. These object > are moving in space, and for some reasons, connections are dynamical and > can be severely impaired or lost. > > They have incoming local streams of data (eg HD videos, accelerometer, GPS, > other wifi and gsm signals, etc). > > I would like to abstract the CPU layer, storage layer, and internet > connection so that in realtime results of one of my objects are saved if > this object dies, so that if one of the object giving internet access to > the group loose its connection, the redundancy allows the group of object > not to lose internet connection. > > Can I consider these as different load balancing layers ? Do you recommend > to implement this at the kernel layer or at an API layer ? Can I see that > as a lightweight cluster ? > > I think the API is more flexible, especially if I have an heterogeneous (by > CPU, OS) set of connected object. However, working at the kernel level > allows existing programs not to be rewritten. What are your thoughts ? > > Do you recommend another list ? This is still very hard to understand. Are you planning to work with some API that is described in a document somewhere? if so please give links. > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A2035D.7030201>