Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:26:54 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: SMP/cc Cluster description |
| |
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 03:08:47PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com> > Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:27:08 -0500 > > - lower overhead for SMP systems. We can use UP kernels local > to each CPU. Should make kernel compiles faster. ;-) > > Actually, this isn't what is being proposed. Something like > "4 cpu" SMP kernels.
I personally want to cluster small SMP OS images because I don't want to do the process migration crap anywhere except at exec time, it simplifies a lot. So I need a second order load balancing term that I can get from 2 or 4 way smp nodes. If you are willing to process migration to handle load imbalances, then you could do uniprocessor only. I think the complexity tradeoff is in favor of the small SMP OS clusters, we already have them. Process migration is a rats nest.
> At the very least it is well worth investigating. Bootstrapping the > ccCluster work shouldn't take more than a week or so, which will let > us attach some hard numbers to the kind of impact it has on purely > cpu local tasks. > > I think it is worth considering too, but I don't know if a week > estimate is sane or not :-)
Yeah, it's possible that you could get something booting in a week but I think it's a bit harder than that too. One idea that was kicked around was to use Jeff's UML work and "boot" multiple UML's on top of a virtual SMP. You get things to work there and then do a "port" to real hardware. Kind of a cool idea if you ask me. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |