I've been bitten more than one <G>. Thank you for the information. I'll wait until Gentoo releases one with a kernel that has XFS support in it.
On Tuesday 23 December 2003 23:08, you wrote: > OpenMosix is best on isolated, relatively homogenous clusters. > > It will work otherwise, but is fraught with problems. It will not > migrate gcc compiles for instance as most are short lived processes. > Then it can migrate things like ssh console sessions, so that when you > shut a system down, it will kill your session when migrating the process > back. If you use very unbalanced hardware (e.g. new athlon vs old > cyrix) it can take a very long time while waiting for the slowest > processor. You can configure around this, but its time consuming. > > Security, better these days but still not something you want running on > a gateway. note that the stable OM kernels are before the brk() > patches. > > Often (very anoying this) one node will take down every other node on a > cluster - either a full hang or spontaneous reset. > > There is an openmosix mailing list which is quite good. Most of the > problems with 2.4.23 have been fixed and I am waiting for gentoos > sources to pick up on them. > > Suitable applications for OM are those with no shared memory (there is a > patch, but it seems experimental and problematic), relatively small data > requirements (there are shared file systems, but that appears to have > one of the current crop of bugs) and having long lived, processor > intensive jobs. > > Its worth trying just from the experience point of view: you soon > develop a healthy respect for the abilities of someone managing hundreds > of these beasts! - and get a first hand understanding of the difference > between hype and reality - the reality is the one that bites! > > BillK > > On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 11:29, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: > > Okay. I haven't been there but have been thinking about it <G>. I tried > > to check out openmosix but the kernel version they support doesn't have > > XFS built in so I have to wait until they decide to support 2.4.23 which > > does have XFS - in short: I gave up on openmosix for a while. > > > > You say it doesn't work and mention the bugs - can you tell me more > > before I try it. > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Tuesday 23 December 2003 21:59, you wrote: > > > been there, done that ... > > > > > > OpenMosix is actually severely limited in the real world. Even with > > > the shared mem patch (I am not sure if the gentoo emerge adds this) it > > > wont work with mysql. And there's the fact that the current 2.4.23 is > > > very unstable oM probs), and the pipe bug, and ... > > > > > > > > > Large databases must be able to loadshare somehow. > > > > > > BillK > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 11:01, Brett I. Holcomb wrote: > > > > You might check out openmosix - it's in portage. > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 23 December 2003 21:27, you wrote: > > > > > I run a mysql database on a relatively low powered gateway > > > > > (cyrix233) and find that the athlon I ran it on before was far > > > > > faster (of course!). Is there a way to loadshare using mysql so > > > > > that when the athlon is up, it takes the load, and the gateway > > > > > otherwise? > > > > > > > > > > I guess some kind of replication and and load distribution overlay > > > > > is required. I am sure that this has been solved elsewhere, but > > > > > how? > > > > > > > > > > BillK > > > > > > > > -- > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
