About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: jon_at_kollegiegaarden.dk
Date: Mon 10 Nov 2003 - 11:51:28 GMT

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 08:33:10PM -0500, Matthew Nuzum wrote:


> > true, I/O bound processes are not good for migrating, but not all
> > has that kind of processes. And even if they do... Gbit networking
> > is cheap, and is certainly faster than most harddrives. So, fill a
> > server with several harddrives, run raid, and export it through the
> > network, and you will get a better throughput than you would on a
> > single drive, and probably even a 2 disk mirror/stripe.
> >
> I don't think this answer would be satisfactory to the original poster.
> Lu?s has already mentioned that he is uncomfortable with the cost of a SCSI
> disk subsystem. I don't think I've seen an IDE server system (even RAID)
> that can saturate a GB connection and even if it could, the cost of that
> server and a GBe Switch would certainly make him long for a simple SCSI
> drive.

it probably wont help him, but i can see a benefit for me from this.
As for IDE disks filling a 1Gbit... i'm sure it is possible, just using
4 disks should be sufficient.

> > one day those processes might be migrateable.
> >
> I look forward to that day as it will greatly enhance the usefulness of the
> OpenMosix system. I have to say, I'm thorough exciting at the power and
> ease of use the mosix system offers. We got a 5 node cluster setup in under
> 75 minutes. That's with configuring DNS, DHCP and networking from scratch.

yes, that would be nice, i'm sure they are working on it.

> The problem is, we had to contrive ways to test the system as all of the
> useful applications we could come up with were non-migratable or performed
> horribly because of the increased I/O latency.

i actualy thought that the I/O progressed with the application,
but i guess openmosix is not as advanced as i had been hoping for.

> The Linux Virtual Server project seems to me to be a much better system for
> handling spiked traffic loads to the types of applications used by Vserver.
> I'll add more on that below your think geek example.

unfortunately right now it means downtime to move stuff :(

> > > I think the audience of people who can legitimately benefit from
> > > a combined vserver/mosix installation is rather small.
> >
> > I'm not so sure, i think that once the technology is there, alot
> > of people would want it. They just dont know it yet. Besides even
> > if it is a small ammount of people, why not allow them to have this
> > functionality?
> >
> Resources are finite. There are several to-do items that would benefit the
> linux-vserver community at large, even those that want OpenMosix support.
> As a web-programmer, I can't actively help the coding process for the
> linux-vserver project or tell the core developers what to do with their
> time, but as a user of the linux-vserver code, I long for tighter
> integration with stock redhat kernels, easier install and management and
> progress towards the 2.6 kernels.

yes, but those resources tend to scratch where their itch is.

> I think that focusing development towards the desires of mainstream users
> will make this project more useful and therefore attract more programming
> talent, which can then be used to add support for OpenMosix and such.

It is useable for mainstream users right now.

[cut - thinkgeek scenario]

> This scenario can not benefit from OpenMosix. A: No large scale database is
> supported on OpenMosix, B: No large scale web-server is supported by
> OpenMosix.

apparantly not, i had hoped that openmosix could do this. I only
read the headlines... "process migration" - cool i want that :)

> All of these tasks are accomplished through the judicious use of load
> balancers, layer 3/4/5 switches, SSL accelerators and clever application
> design.

yes, i suppose so, but that means more machines.

> If someone needs a set-up to handle a load like this, they use LVS or
> similar.

My point is that they dont know they need to handle a load like this.

> > Just because this situation might not use vserver/openmosix, does
> > not mean other situations can not use it.
> >
> >
> I am not against OpenMosix support; I just want to point out that few will
> benefit from such an addition.

Sometimes stuff is also done because it is cool :)

Vserver mailing list

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Mon 10 Nov 2003 - 11:54:56 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3