Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:39:30 -0500 (EST) | | From | linux kernel account <> | | Subject | Re: 3.0 wishlist Was: Overview of 2.2.x goals? |
| |
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Kamran wrote:
> Hi, > > James Mastros wrote: > >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, linux kernel account wrote: > [...] > >> * Possibly DIPC integration, at least some of the > >> clustering features that arn't WAY out there. (support > >> for a daemon providing shared pid space) > >Not hard to add as a patch, [...] > > It is hard for the DIPC development team to prepare the patches for the > new kernels.
Exactly why I mentioned it.. along with shared pid space.. Both would be relitavly low cost to maintain within the kernel, but I'm sure the developers have a helluva time keeping up.
Once these basics are in, its alot less work for people trying to do more advanced cluster stuff..
> > > [...] and I think it's going to stay that way till we > >see some standard for DIPC. [...] > > DIPC changes some standard UNIX mechanisms (System V IPC), in a _very_ > compatible way, to do its work. > > > [...] (BTW -- DIPC != clustering -- Distributed > >Interprocess Communication) > > Depends on your definition of clustering. Windows NT has "clustering", but > it is more about fault tolerance. A page-based distributed shared memory > system is really hard to find on commercial operating systems. > > I think DIPC is a very useful addition to Linux, and it would be better for > it to get into the standard kernels as soon as possible. We have been > tracking Linux kernel releases for about two years (DIPC has been usable > right from its first "alpha" release), and have been forced to adapt DIPC's > kernel patches to the changes people make there. I and other people working > on DIPC can not continue doing so for ever.
I've played with it a bit (earley releases) and I've found it to work rather well (well, a bit slow when I used it.. But hey it was alpha)..
This really should be included..
|  |