Re: Will Mosix go into the standard kernel?

argh. OK

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 01:56:25PM -0800, Zack Brown wrote:
> Do the Mosix folks have anything to add about possible integration into the
> kernel? (should have cced them earlier, but it slipped my mind)
> 
>  On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David L. Nicol wrote:
> 
> > Zack Brown wrote:
> > > 
> > > Just curious, are there any plans to put Mosix into the standard kernel,
> > > maybe in 2.5, so folks could just configure it and go? it seems that the
> > > number of people with more than one computer might make this a feature many
> > > would at least want to try, especially if it was available as an option by
> > > default. Is there anything in the Mosix folks' implementation that would
> > > prevent this?
> > 
> > I'm not a knowledgeable person, but I've been following Mosix/beowulf/? for
> > a few years and trying to keep up.
> > 
> > I've thought that it would be good to break up the different clustering
> > frills -- node identification, process migration, process hosting, distributed
> > memory, yadda yadda blah, into separate bite-sized portions.  
> > 
> > Centralization would be good for standardizing on what /proc/?/?/? you read to
> > find out what clusters you are in, and whatis your node number there.  There
> > is a lot of theorhetical work to be done.
> > 
> > Until then, I don't expect to see the Complete Mosix Patch Set available
> > from ftp.kernel.org in its current form, as a monolithic set that does many things,
> > including its Very Own Distributed File System Architecture.
> > 
> > If any of the work from Mosix will make it Into The Standard Kernel it will be
> > by backporting and standardization.
> > 
> > 
> > Is there a good list to discuss this on?  Is this the list?  Which pieces of
> > clustering-scheme patches would be good to have? 
> > 
> > I think a good place to start would be node numbering.
> > 
> > The standard node numbering would need to be flexible enough to have one machine
> > participating in multiple clusters at the same time.
> > 
> > /proc/cluster/....	this would be standard root point for clustering stuff
> > 
> > /proc/mosix would go away, become proc/cluster/mosix
> > 
> > and the same with whatever bproc puts into /proc; that stuff would move to
> > /proc/cluster/bproc
> > 
> > 
> > Or, the status quo will endure, with cluster hackers playing catch-up.
> 
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> 
> |
> |#include <std_rants/Thou_Shalt_Not_Shite_Into_Procfs>
> |
> |Guys, if you want a large subtree in /proc - whack yourself over the head
> |until you realize that you want an fs of your own. I'll be more than
> |happy to help with both parts.
> 
> Rik van Riel said:
> 
> > I know each of the cluster projects have mailing lists, but
> > I've never heard of a list where the different projects come
> > together to eg. find out which parts of the infrastructure
> > they could share, or ...
> > 
> > Since I agree with you that we need such a place, I've just
> > created a mailing list:
> > 
> >         [e-mail]
> > 
> > To subscribe to the list, send an email with the text
> > "subscribe linux-cluster" to:
> > 
> >         [e-mail]
> > 
> > 
> > I hope that we'll be able to split out some infrastructure
> > stuff from the different cluster projects and we'll be able
> > to put cluster support into the kernel in such a way that
> > we won't have to make the choice which of the N+1 cluster
> > projects should make it into the kernel...
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zack Brown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/