so basically what your saying is something along the lines of a rendering cluster would be a good candidate for this?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Jon Forrest <[email protected]> wrote: > At a recent Rocks clustering user's group > meeting the recent addition of Rocks support of > Xen-based virtual clusters came up. Some > of the same questions recently raised on this > list were discussed there. > > One justification for virtual clusters that I > hadn't thought of was discussed. This only applies > in places with large clusters run by a central > computing group but used by various internal > customers. Using virtual clusters makes it > very easy to supply clusters to customers > who need a cluster for a limited period of > time. The amount of effort necessary to > provision a new cluster is minimal. > Nodes can easily and quickly be added, > if necessary. This is as opposed to buying > a new cluster for a research group, using it > for a couple of months, and then turning it > off. > > So, in this case, virtualized clusters have > the advantage of being easier to manage. The > performance overhead caused by the virtualization > is a factor, but it's decreasing as time goes > on due to better hardware support of virtualization > and cleverer software. > > Cordially, > -- > Jon Forrest > Research Computing Support > College of Chemistry > 173 Tan Hall > University of California Berkeley > Berkeley, CA > 94720-1460 > 510-643-1032 > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > -- Jonathan Aquilina
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
