> As long as processes aren't too large or too small, it's going to work :) Medium-sized and small are the ones I expect on my systems. mosix installation i've seen is overloaded with BIG processes and it works like a charm ( fortran programs that use GIGs of RAM - all machines are equipped with 128M up to 512M of ram with 2Gigs of swap - swap divided into eee, two swaps, it's sth MOSIX-specific )
> Process migration works for processes that a single node can > process. :) I'd be intereset in how well this handles handles - file handles and sockets > you have up to 15-20 machines, it might not be visible. I might be I've heard of 2000 machines MOSIX in israel and it was unusable - too much network traffic even using best switches and 100Mbit networ ( i think gigabit ethernet ain't the best thing for parallel computing due to larger delays , and myrinet cards are way too expensive ) > 1000s of boxen of course. :) it's been said that it can support up to 6500 boxes, but I think that it would be way cheeper and faster to buy parallel machine from SGI > can usually pass messages in systems like Mach or Amoeba in a convenient Amoeba is quite strange thing, although i think i like it's filesystem very much. and i don't like it's licence. there is linux version built on Mach microkernel, do you think this would be any better? > for scientific computing. Linear algebra, mostly. blas, scalapack, etc. blacs. yes. but I ain't going to do much scientific computing, am thinking about some more general solutions. > People also have tried automatic parallelization of sequential code, but that > doesn't work. :) Hmm? and what about modern processors? don't they do this and do this quite nicely ? > to do some really neat work, I suggest you to have a look at HPF (High > Performance > Fortran), this seems to be the only serious data-parallel language around. > Not that never learned fortran, there is physics hmm division/catedra( pardon my english ) near by, they teach fortran, but they do it bad or fortran is a dirty language cause i didn't like how their code looks and works. > be sure that it is going to be viable for at least a couple of decades. :) so are assemblers, but I ain't going to do much coding with asm either. > in potato and woody distributions. LAM can also handle heterogeneous networks, that's great, I'll take a look at it, thanks. > will distract you from the problem. If the available code doesn't give you > much > leverage, the rest is black magic. thanks, I'll remember that. > Some physicists like Charm++ also, but I don't find that very efficient. what is Charm++?
