Re: GFS, what's remainingh

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 9/6/05, Daniel Phillips <phillips@istop.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without
> > > > ever seeing the code?
> > >
> > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there
> > > anything more I need to know?
> >
> > I would still like to know why you consider it a "sin". On OpenVMS it is
> > fast, provides a way of cleaning up...
> 
> There is something hard about handling EPIPE?
> 

Just the fact that you want me to handle it ;)

> > and does not introduce single point
> > of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread
> > the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it.
> 
> But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it
> to two aging Alphas?

You would be right if I was designing this right now. Now roll 10 - 12
years back and now I have a shiny new alpha. Would you criticize me
then for using a mechanism that allowed easily spread application
across several nodes with minimal changes if needed?

What you fail to realize that there applications that run and will
continue to run for a long time.

>  And what makes you think that socket-based
> synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes?
> 
> > Why would I not want to use it?
> 
> It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me.  You want to
> get a few bytes of information from one task to another?  Use a socket, as
> God intended.
>

Again, when TCPIP is not a native network stack, when libc socket
routines are not readily available - DLM starts looking much more
viable.

-- 
Dmitry