Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:10:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:10:59 -0500 Received: from [196.12.44.6] ([196.12.44.6]:50141 "EHLO students.iiit.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:10:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:44:30 +0530 (IST) From: Prasad To: Bruce Walker cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linux-kernel , ssic-linux-devel Subject: Re: [SSI] Re: Distributed Linux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1245 Lines: 31 > > 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 - 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/