Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:21:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:15:41 -0500 Received: from battlejitney.wdhq.scyld.com ([216.254.93.178]:25076 "EHLO vaio.greennet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:05:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 13:12:20 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Becker To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Linux/Pro -- clusters 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 Davide Libenzi (davidel@xmailserver.org) wrote >And if you're the prophet and you think that the future of multiprocessing >is UP on clusters, why instead of spreading your word between us poor >kernel fans don't you pull out money from your pocket ( or investors ) and >start a new Co. that will have that solution has primary and unique goal ? I believe that the future of multiprocessing is clusters of small scale SMP machines, 2-8 processors each. And the most important part of clustering them together isn't single system image from the programmers point of view, it's transparent administration for the end user. Thus our system has a unified process space and a single point of control, while imposing no overhead on processes. You are right that there is no reason to convince people here -- I tried to do that a few years ago. Instead I've put lots of my own time and money, as well as investor money, into a company that does only cluster system software. Anyway, my real point is that while I'm a big proponent of designing consistent interfaces rather than the haphazard, incompatible changes that have been occurring, this is far from predict-the-future design. The goal of designing the kernel to support 128 way SMP systems is a perfect example of the difference. A few days or weeks of using a proposed interface change will show if the advantages are worth the cost of the change. We won't know for years if redesigning the kernel for large scale SMP system is useful - does it actually work, - will big SMP machines be common, or even exist? - will big SMP machines have the characteristics we predict let alone worth the costs such as - UP performance hit - complexity increase slows other improvements - difficult performance tuning Donald Becker becker@scyld.com Scyld Computing Corporation http://www.scyld.com 410 Severn Ave. Suite 210 Second Generation Beowulf Clusters Annapolis MD 21403 410-990-9993 - 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/