Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: SMP/cc Cluster description [was Linux/Pro] | Date | Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:33:42 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 02:11 pm, Larry McVoy wrote: > > If I give you 16 SMP systems, each with 4 processors and a gigabit > > ethernet card, and connect those ethers through a switch, would that > > be sufficient hardware? > > You've completely misunderstood the message, sorry, I must not have been > clear. What I am proposing is to cluster *OS* images on a *single* SMP as a > way of avoiding most of the locks necessary to scale up a single OS image > on the same number of CPUs. > > It has nothing to do with clustering more than one system, it's not that > kind of clustering. It's clustering OS images.
So basically, you're just turning the per-processor data into a tree?
> To make it easy, let's imagine you have a 16 way SMP box and an OS image > that runs well on one CPU. Then a ccCluster would be 16 OS images, each > running on a different CPU, all on the same hardware. > > DEC has done this, Sun has done this, IBM has really done this, but what > none of them have done is make mmap() work across OS boundaries.
The shared memory clustering people are basically trying to make mmap+semaphores work across a high speed LAN. Why? Because it's cheap, and the programming model's familiar.
Approaching it all from a different direction, though. Probably not of help to you...
Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |