From owner-freebsd-cluster Thu Dec 12 9:50:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFF437B401 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689D543ED8 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:50:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rminnich@lanl.gov) Received: from ccs.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3/(ccn-5)) with SMTP id gBCHom9i013359 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 Received: (qmail 28159 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 Received: from unknown (HELO carotid.ccs.lanl.gov) (128.165.148.162) by 128.165.148.1 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 Received: (qmail 18331 invoked by uid 3499); 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:50:48 -0700 (MST) From: "Ronald G. Minnich" X-X-Sender: rminnich@carotid.ccs.lanl.gov To: Andy Sporner Cc: freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sharing files within a cluster In-Reply-To: <3DF8B537.70908@nentec.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Andy Sporner wrote: > Well let's review here. RPC's have many dependencies for correct > operation (portmap, etc) regular socket I/O does not--so which one is > more reliable??? Actually, that's SunRPC, one variation of RPC, that requires all that stuff. RPC is a very simple concept, and what you typically see is people implementing things that are actually RPC but calling it socket I/O. Pretty much any protocol running over sockets that does a request with a "procedure number" and expects a response to that request is RPC. You can even do async RPC, sources on my web page to a modified SunRPC that does this. Performance is pretty good to lots of nodes ... works on FreeBSD, or used to. My apologies, the "linuxbios naming" thing really teed me off. I'm also sorry to be so darned tactless, a lot of those messages I was just pounding out between Pink bringing firefighting or early in the morning when I should sleep instead of write email. I apologize to this list. > Your "read and learn" comment is just the kind of pompousity I expect > from the academic world. I gotta watch that. I'm being terse and I guess I should not be. Esp. since I have not been in the academic world for 14 years, I've been building HPC systems for various gov't and commercial entities instead. I'm getting really frustrated with this list, however, since people seem to be refusing to learn from linux because it's "evil", and at the same time proposing stuff that's been tried years ago on linux and found not to work. I think it is really important that the FreeBSD community break out into something new and really neat. At a minimum, however, I'd like to see FreeBSD have equal capability to Linux clustering for HPC. And I think before we condemn technologies ("RPC") it's best to make sure it's the technology, and not a specific implementation of it, that are the issue. I would really encourage people to get at the literature of SSI, going back to Farber's original DCS paper in '72, and try to find an angle that is somehow new and uniquely suited to FreeBSD. And "Linux sucks, FreeBSD rules" is not going to be the thing that does it. What about FreeBSD can somehow make it much better for clustering? That's the problem I've never been able to answer -- maybe one of you can. This list is sporadically active, but there have not been tons of new ideas crossing it -- seems like we see the same stuff over and over again. > If this was such well plowed ground, why does it not already exists in > FreeBSD? Because, and as a former FreeBSD cluster builder I hate to say this, Linux won. And the mindshare is in Linux, as are the compilers, 3rd party apps, and all the big vendors. There are many 10s of millions of dollars of clustering money being spent by IBM, HP, Intel, etc., etc. and absent something really new and innovative I don't see FreeBSD breaking in. The closed-minded nature of the FreeBSD core has not helped. I wrote a DSM for FreeBSD 2.0.5 ca. 1994, which was based on simple mods to NFS -- called MNFS (really it was a port from a SunOS version I also wrote). It required a simple extension to the VM system (it required the VM layer to tell the VFS layer if a page fault was for read or read/write -- that's what SunOS does) and I could not get the FreeBSD core to add this simple additional parameter -- it violated "information hiding between layers", which is good in theory but in practice the more info the better. (this code is still on my web page along with the MNFS papers). 8 years ago both Sandia/Livermore and I were building freebsd clusters. It's arguably the better OS. Is it so much better or different from Linux that it is inherently better for clustering? Probably not. So we got clobbered by the rest of the world. What we got steamrolled by was the availability of so many 3rd part apps. > As for comments to you, I think it is pretty clear that when I made an offer > to port the very thing you asked for a reply is in order. I'm glad to hear it, sorry for lack of reply. Please get the clustermatic ISO at www.clustermatic.org and then we can talk about porting. I would LOVE to see this happen. You can find an initial private name space VFS implementation for FreeBSD, called v9fs, I think on my web page. Sorry, Andy. I'll try to behave. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message