lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Lets get this right (WAS RE:MOSIX and kernel mods)

Larry McVoy writes:
From "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>

>>> We need a solution that we can live with for the next ten years, not
>>> one that works now, and then we have to ditch at the next major
>>> release with much gnashing of teeth.
>>
>> FUD, FUD, FUD. (Why?) Distributed memory won't need to be ditched.
>
> I've got a question for you, since you seem to be implying that the people
> saying "no thanks" are spreading FUD,

No, just the person I responded to. He made an emotional appeal based
on some kind of glorious fight against mediocrity.

Those that wrote the DSM code state that it has little impact on the
rest of the kernel. Do you claim that they lie?

>> Let's say you have 3 choices:
>>
>> 1. 95% use of a single machine
>> 2. 80% use of a 16-way cluster, but 2 weeks development time
>> 3. 60% use of a 16-way cluster, but 2 hours development time
>
> Show me the apps which match this model.

Just about any shared memory app fits, given the right run length,
cluster size, developer time constraints, and developer experience.
The exact numbers are nothing: it is obvious that a rewrite will
take more developer time than the adjustments needed for DSM.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.036 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site