From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Jan 2 8:13:10 2001 From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 2 08:13:08 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from lucifer.ninth-circle.org (lucifer.bart.nl [194.158.168.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B395C37B400 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by lucifer.ninth-circle.org (8.11.1/8.11.0) id f02GCpG66025; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:12:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:12:51 +0100 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: Peter Sedivy - PeSe Cc: Clustering FreeBSD Subject: Re: testing the connection Message-ID: <20010102171251.O59618@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <200011291624.LAA29360@sanson.reyes.somos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from pese@yhman.tnuni.sk on Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 05:29:55PM +0100 Organisation: VIA Net.Works The Netherlands Sender: asmodai@lucifer.ninth-circle.org Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -On [20001210 17:30], Peter Sedivy - PeSe (pese@yhman.tnuni.sk) wrote: >i've decided to build it on FreeBSD. We've got 8 PII300MHz machines with >64MB RAM. >Could You help me how to build cluster? >I have no experiences with clustering, i have some teoretical knowledge >what cluster is. >I'm administering some BSD servers so, don't wory. :-} Well, the problem is that clustering depends on the person implementing it. I myself prefer to use the term cluster to denote the boxes which exist as a single entity to the outside world [call it a black box if you want] and provide a high availability cluster. I am not really interested, at the moment, about computing clusters. That, and I lack knowledge in that area. I can stil hold my own when it comes to HA clusters. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven VIA Net.Works The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best Network- and systemadministrator D78D D0AD 244D 1D12 C9CA 7152 035C 1138 546A B867 I know your name, but I am just your Fallen Angel of Doom... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Jan 2 10:28:43 2001 From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 2 10:28:41 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from post.mail.nl.demon.net (post-11.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F88237B400 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.238.54.101] (helo=freebie.demon.nl) by post.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.14 #4) id 14DWAi-0009U7-00; Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:28:32 +0000 Received: (from wkb@localhost) by freebie.demon.nl (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f02ITKo00592; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:29:20 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wkb) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:29:20 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Cc: Peter Sedivy - PeSe , Clustering FreeBSD Subject: Re: testing the connection Message-ID: <20010102192920.C497@freebie.demon.nl> References: <200011291624.LAA29360@sanson.reyes.somos.net> <20010102171251.O59618@lucifer.bart.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20010102171251.O59618@lucifer.bart.nl>; from jruigrok@via-net-works.nl on Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 05:12:51PM +0100 X-OS: FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 05:12:51PM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > -On [20001210 17:30], Peter Sedivy - PeSe (pese@yhman.tnuni.sk) wrote: > >i've decided to build it on FreeBSD. We've got 8 PII300MHz machines with > >64MB RAM. > >Could You help me how to build cluster? > >I have no experiences with clustering, i have some teoretical knowledge > >what cluster is. > >I'm administering some BSD servers so, don't wory. :-} > > Well, the problem is that clustering depends on the person implementing > it. > > I myself prefer to use the term cluster to denote the boxes which exist > as a single entity to the outside world [call it a black box if you Preferably the holy grail: the single system image cluster > want] and provide a high availability cluster. HA clustering can(..) be a whole lot easier than SSI clusters. -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, the Netherlands wilko@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org http://www.nlfug.nl To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Sat Jan 6 14:10:50 2001 From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 6 14:10:48 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412A437B400; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f06MAl720242; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:10:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:10:47 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: jasone@FreeBSD.org Cc: cluster@FreeBSD.org Subject: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jason, As part of your scheduler activation work, I know that you're looking at decomposing the concept of a "process", which will mean (among other things) improving abstractions for operations on processes. An idea that I am interested in is having process entries appear without a real local process (address space, etc) to back it. The process will instead reflect the status and condition of a process on a remote machine, probably managed by some sort of userland daemon. The daemon would update kernel information for the process entry, and when certain types of operations were performed on the process (signal delivery in particular), those operations would be forwarded to the supporting process to actually be delivered. Rght now, such a construction is not really possible, as there is a lot of code that assumes a process is "real" -- that is, each struct proc (other than zombies and nascent processes during creation) have a real address space, etc. While there are some abstractions to support changing the "nature" of a process (primarily used for emulation), I don't think they're currently sufficient to support what I'm describing. In effect, what I'd like to see is an abstracted kobj-like interface for actions performed on processes, so that alternative implementations could be provided. It seems to me that if such a mechanism were to be introduced, it would be nice to do it as part of the decomposition work -- identifying points where struct proc's are manipulated (scheduled, signal'd, debugged, status retrieved, killed gratuitously due to VM shortage, etc) and abstracting them now. As such, you could imagine two starting "process" implementations: the current-day model, and a scheduler activation model. Then you could imagine a kernel module being loaded to service a new "cluster process", backed by a daemon that propagated information and requests around. Any thoughts on the feasibility and/or usefulness of this? It's sort of Mach-esque. :-) Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Sat Jan 6 14:35: 3 2001 From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 6 14:35:02 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C6F37B400; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:35:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f06MZ0720540; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:35:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:35:00 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: jasone@FreeBSD.org Cc: cluster@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG BTW, a few cute side effects of abstracting out some of the process functionality to hide the implementation of some process functionality: - Emulated environments can expose the process structure from within an emulated operating system. For example, processes running under Windows in VMWare or plex86 could appear in the system process table -- terminate signals to the image processes could be delivered within Windows to the real process (given appropriate mapping). - The same goes for clustering environments -- when a process is on another host, or migrates, images appear on each host to reflect that change. Depending on how comprehensive the level of clustering is, operations from signaling to debugging could be forwarded. It could also be used to help support clustering in other ways -- when a process migrates, its implementor is changed so that requests originally delivered locally are now forwarded as needed. - Old-style processes and SA processes could coexist at the same time, with requests on a process being processed by different code transparently. We already do this for things like the process sysent table, some signal delivery, etc. Presumably this would be entirely compatible with the decomposition of the process such that scheduled entities are not necessarily the same as entries in the process table (not all processes that are visible are scheduled, or they may have multiple schedulable parts). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Sat Jan 6 16:58:41 2001 From owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 6 16:58:25 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A677C37B402; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 16:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mini.acl.lanl.gov (root@mini.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.34]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA4385659; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:58:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (rminnich@localhost) by mini.acl.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA15100; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:58:24 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: mini.acl.lanl.gov: rminnich owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:58:23 -0700 (MST) From: Ronald G Minnich X-Sender: rminnich@mini.acl.lanl.gov To: Robert Watson Cc: jasone@FreeBSD.ORG, cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I strongly recommend before you go this direction that you check out the way Plan 9 processes work. It's quite beautiful, since the operations on remote and local processes all work the exact same way. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Sat Jan 6 18:11:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0477B37B404; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 18:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (robert@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f072BN722371; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 21:11:23 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ronald G Minnich Cc: jasone@FreeBSD.ORG, cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Decomposition of "process" -- will it be possible to have unbacked procs? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > I strongly recommend before you go this direction that you check out the > way Plan 9 processes work. It's quite beautiful, since the operations on > remote and local processes all work the exact same way. Distributed mach was nice that way also -- the message passing primitives were location independent. Every time I start looking at this stuff, I start thinking about how it's a pity a bit more Mach didn't make it into BSD. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message