Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Jun 1998 09:55:56 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Remote fork() and Parallel programming |
| |
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 linker@nightshade.ml.org wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Emil Briggs wrote: > > > >The fastest TCP latency I know of is about 80,000ns. The fastest Unet > > >(no protocols, network mapped into the process' address space) latency > > >is about 30,000ns. > > > > Are you sure about the 30,000ns figure? There are several solutions > > that claim 2-3 microsecond latency using some custom hardware and > > userspace libraries. These include > > Though I can't imagine that it needs to be *that* high.. With a special > (non-ip, non checksummed) ethernet protocall for san's and a highly > optimized networking path much lower should be possible..
There's a special networking protocol (called flip) for this in Amoeba. Don't know how good it is, but it might be worth a look. Maybe ast will be friendly enough to release the flip code under GPL... (I believe Amoeba is free now)
> I still think my point in clear, such remote fork and migration should > workable if the migration is infrequent enough.
Amoeba did it, I believe Sprite did it too. This proves that it can be done, just not that it can be done efficiently...
Rik. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |