* Re: Distributed Linux @ 2002-11-13 5:13 Aneesh Kumar K.V 2002-11-13 17:47 ` [SSI] " Bruce Walker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2002-11-13 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: prasad_s; +Cc: linux-kernel, ssic-linux-devel > As a graduation project i intended to make linux distributed This is what exactly openSSI project does. http://ssic-linux.sf.net >The processes would be dynamically migrated from one node to the other >based on the selections of local process (candidate) and the remote >node. In the case of SSI the process to be migrated is selected by using mosix algorithm. If mosix load balancer is not enabled automatic load balancing doesn't work. But you can use the migrate() call with "best node" argument so that the average load on the machine is used to determine which node the process should migrate. >The entire task along with its memory map will be migrated on to the >other system SSI even support mmap across cluster. That means you can even ask a process that has done a mmap of file to migrate to another node. >The guest system (where the process originated) would >however have a pseudo process running on it, which would not take much >resources but would help in handling various signals/ SSI support cluster wide signaling. That means you can send signal to a process running on other node( you have cluster wide PID ) It also support cluster wide message queue, DLM , cluster wide device access and cluster wide IP. The developers are working on cluster wide support for semaphore shared memory NOTE: it support three architectures. x86/IA64/Alpha -aneesh ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SSI] Re: Distributed Linux 2002-11-13 5:13 Distributed Linux Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2002-11-13 17:47 ` Bruce Walker 2002-11-13 19:06 ` Prasad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Bruce Walker @ 2002-11-13 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aneesh Kumar K.V; +Cc: prasad_s, linux-kernel, ssic-linux-devel > > As a graduation project i intended to make linux distributed snip > > >The guest system (where the process originated) would > >however have a pseudo process running on it, which would not take much > >resources but would help in handling various signals/ > > SSI support cluster wide signaling. That means you can send signal to a > process running on other node( you have cluster wide PID ) > The openSSI process model is quite different than Bproc or Mosix or your "guest system" proposal. In the openSSI model, there is no pseudo or shadow process at the processes creation node; after a processes migrates, all its system calls are executed on the new node and signalling to the process is done directly to the process on the new node. Besides the obvious performance advantages this can give, it can also provide availability advantages because the creation node can go down without taking the process down with it. bruce > > -aneesh > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: > To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, > click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: > http://www.gothawte.com/rd522.html > _______________________________________________ > ssic-linux-devel mailing list > ssic-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SSI] Re: Distributed Linux 2002-11-13 17:47 ` [SSI] " Bruce Walker @ 2002-11-13 19:06 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 19:14 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 22:58 ` Brian J. Watson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Prasad @ 2002-11-13 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Walker; +Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V, linux-kernel, ssic-linux-devel On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Bruce Walker wrote: > > > As a graduation project i intended to make linux distributed > > snip > > > > >The guest system (where the process originated) would > > >however have a pseudo process running on it, which would not take much > > >resources but would help in handling various signals/ > > > > SSI support cluster wide signaling. That means you can send signal to a > > process running on other node( you have cluster wide PID ) > > > The openSSI process model is quite different than Bproc or Mosix or > your "guest system" proposal. In the openSSI model, there is no > pseudo or shadow process at the processes creation node; after > a processes migrates, all its system calls are executed on the new > node and signalling to the process is done directly to the process on > the new node. Besides the obvious performance advantages this can > give, it can also provide availability advantages because the > creation node can go down without taking the process down with it. > Yeah, openSSI approach has some advantages, but how about the other side, how are the devices and files being handled? isn't it wrong to run someone elses process when the data that he is supposed to provide is missing? My work is based on a workstation model where all the nodes are independent workstations (in most cases with similar configurations, as in a computer laboratory at a university). One of my major constraints is that the system should be binary compatible with the kernel that does not support my model. In my case i plan packing and restarting a process when the creation node goes down. Prasad. > bruce > > > -aneesh > > -- Failure is not an option ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SSI] Re: Distributed Linux 2002-11-13 19:06 ` Prasad @ 2002-11-13 19:14 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 22:58 ` Brian J. Watson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Prasad @ 2002-11-13 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Walker; +Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V, linux-kernel, ssic-linux-devel > > Yeah, openSSI approach has some advantages, but how about the other side, > how are the devices and files being handled? isn't it wrong to run > someone elses process when the data that he is supposed to provide is > missing? My work is based on a workstation model where all the nodes are > independent workstations (in most cases with similar configurations, as in > a computer laboratory at a university). One of my major constraints is > that the system should be binary compatible with the kernel that does not > support my model. In my case i plan packing and restarting a process when > the creation node goes down. > > Prasad. > Missed something in my previous one... even i am migrating only part of the system mode computations on the creation node. They only include the device/filesystem handling syscalls. Most of the other things, that correspond to the process and memory management are being executed on the host system itself. Prasad. -- Failure is not an option ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SSI] Re: Distributed Linux 2002-11-13 19:06 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 19:14 ` Prasad @ 2002-11-13 22:58 ` Brian J. Watson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Brian J. Watson @ 2002-11-13 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Prasad; +Cc: Bruce Walker, Aneesh Kumar K.V, linux-kernel, ssic-linux-devel > Yeah, openSSI approach has some advantages, but how about the other side, > how are the devices and files being handled? The file systems are shared across the cluster. A mount done on one node is done on all nodes, and every node has coherent read/write access to that file system. This can be done in one of three ways: CFS, GFS, and Lustre. CFS is a stateful NFS with tight coherency guarantees that allows the internal disk of one node to be shared with all nodes. GFS is a parallel physical file system that allows virtually simultaneous access to a shared disk that is connected to all nodes. I don't know much about Lustre, so someone else can fill you in on this. Only CFS and GFS can be used for the root file system. Devices are handled by function shipping the file ops. When a process migrates onto a new node, it "reopens" all of its file descriptors. For regular files, it essentially opens the files again on the new node (leveraging the shared file systems described above). For all other files (devices, sockets, pipes, etc.), it sets up a dummy file structure with special ops that function ship reads, writes, ioctls, polls, etc. to the node where a particular object lives. > isn't it wrong to run > someone elses process when the data that he is supposed to provide is > missing? As I described above, the data is available anywhere in the cluster. > One of my major constraints is > that the system should be binary compatible with the kernel that does not > support my model. That's a constraint of our clustering technology, as well. Our stuff is installed by replacing the kernel and a few key commands that have been made cluster aware: init, mkinitrd, lilo, mount, swapon, fsck, and maybe one or two others I can't remember. Everything else in the OS is blissfully unaware of the modified kernel underneath. A process running an unmodified program can be migrated around the cluster without any problems (apart from potential performance issues if it's doing a lot of work with remote objects). -- Brian Watson | "Now I don't know, but I been told it's Software Developer | hard to run with the weight of gold, Open SSI Clustering Project | Other hand I heard it said, it's Hewlett-Packard Company | just as hard with the weight of lead." | -Robert Hunter, 1970 mailto:Brian.J.Watson@hp.com http://opensource.compaq.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-11-13 22:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-11-13 5:13 Distributed Linux Aneesh Kumar K.V 2002-11-13 17:47 ` [SSI] " Bruce Walker 2002-11-13 19:06 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 19:14 ` Prasad 2002-11-13 22:58 ` Brian J. Watson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox