From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:12:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:11:57 -0400 Received: from cr821974-a.lndn1.on.wave.home.com ([24.112.53.173]:39941 "EHLO megatonmonkey.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:11:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:11:56 -0400 From: "Carlos O'Donell Jr." To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Switching Kernels without Rebooting? [MOSIX] Message-ID: <20010711141156.B32049@megatonmonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <001501c10980$f42035a0$fe00000a@cslater> <3B4C180E.D3AE1960@idb.hist.no> <005f01c10a20$03baf5a0$fe00000a@cslater> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <005f01c10a20$03baf5a0$fe00000a@cslater>; from cslater@wcnet.org on Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 11:41:54AM -0400 X-Useless-Header: oooohhmmm, chant the email mantra... X-Mailer: Patched Mutt OS 1.2.5 - Neural Implant (47% Sync Ratio [=====.....]) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 11:41:54AM -0400, C. Slater wrote: > Unless we find some other way to do it, i think we will have to limit this > to only switching between kernels with the same minor version. We probably > would not beable to swap between 2.4 and 2.6 anyways, though it depends on > what changes are made. > > Colin Just thinking... If you had enough money, and were inclined enough, one could setup the following system: - 2 Boxes, Running MOSIX (similar processors). a. Start processes on Box 1. b. Migrate processes to Box 2. If the need to upgrade the kernel arises, you can migrate the processes back to Box 1. Upgrade the kenrel on Box 2, recompile MOSIX. If the first two digits of the MOSIX version are the same, you can migrate the processes back to Box 2 (now running the latest kernel). The stubs inplace for your process will run local kernel functions that are not specifically host dependant, thus taking advantage of the newer kernel features, and possibly newer hardware on Box 2, at an application level. Obviously, Box 1 could be smaller and less expensive. Take note that if Box 1 were to fail, you process would die, since the kernel stubs need to be in place on the original machine. There are many cons to this system, but I will not ruin the decidely happy mood of this linux-future-istic conversation ;) Cheers, Carlos O'Donell Jr. ------------------------- Baldric Project http://www.baldric.uwo.ca -------------------------