From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Dec 10 14:51:29 2002 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 8BD4637B401 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:51:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fubar.adept.org (fubar.adept.org [63.147.172.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FF543EC5 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:51:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by fubar.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A428215247; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:48:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fubar.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E4415213 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:48:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:48:16 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Hoskins To: freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sharing files within a cluster In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021210144140.F80524-100000@fubar.adept.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > > Lets not put Linux down like that. ;-)) I like "Linux is the new Unix." > > better. ;-) While it is more and more a matter of semantics, Linux is not Unix. That was the design idea behind it, and something I hope any true Linux fan (!me) can at least appreciate. > I think FreeBSD would run all these Linux things just as well as Linux > does. I sure wish somebody would look at bproc for FreeBSD. OK, I'm searching for bproc now. ;) In general though, the current problem is there's plenty of people saying "I wish someone would do X" and not many people doing... anything. I agree it's beneficial to first choose a direction... But I think we must be careful to avoid talking too much and coding too little. ;) > no, please check out Plan 9, cluster-wide /proc is not a good thing. At > most you want the bproc-style proc. Did you mean "At most..." or "At least..." ? I ask, because if bproc is the maximal desired implementation, what is a minimal implementation IYO? You seem knowledgeable here, and I certainly am not... (I'm just trying to get a firm grasp and what's needed, then maybe I can start attempting to understand what's desired.) > > - Scale to 100s of nodes. > start at 1024. It seems that's about where lustre.org's efforts are. I'm going to try to get a better understanding of their architecture. > > - Cluster wide shared memory. > eek. Eek indeed! Let's do everything else right first. ;) LOTS of complications here. -- Mike Hoskins This message is RFC 1855 compliant, mike@adept.org www.adept.org/~mike/pub/rfcs/rfc1855.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message