The problem then is how to feed both machines the same inputs, and
compare the outputs. Do we need a third machine to supervise?
Can we have each machine keep an eye on the other, avoiding the
need for a third machine?
A pair would work as long as the only failures are obvious (e.g.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
Depends on what sort of work the machine is doing. If the job is
something that can be done again, you could simply try again, if
you still get different answers try a third machine or wade in and
start manually
On 2/20/12 6:32 AM, Da Rock wrote:
On 02/15/12 03:25, Brandon Falk wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails,
the
On 02/15/12 03:25, Brandon Falk wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is
Rayson writes:
The question is, are we planning to handle 95% of the errors for 99%
of the hardware we run on, or are we really planning to spend years
trying to design something that would require special hardware
support?
I assume this started as: Oh look, most CPUs have multiple cores
Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
The problem then is how to feed both machines the same inputs, and
compare the outputs. ??Do we need a third machine to supervise?
Can we have each machine keep an eye on the other, avoiding the
need for a third machine?
A pair would work as long as
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to checkpoint the state of each core at specific intervals
of time in main memory. Once a core fails, its previous state
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to checkpoint the state of each core at specific intervals
of time in main
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to
On 2/14/2012 10:57 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to checkpoint the state of each
On 2/14/2012 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
(The email below did not show up on the online archive - resending...)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Rayson Ho raysonlo...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: OS support for fault tolerance
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Julian Elischer jul
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
but I'm interested in any answers people may have
The way other OSes handle this is by detecting any abnormal amounts of
faults (sometimes it's not the fault of the hardware - eg. when a
partical from the outerspace hits
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal jh...@dataix.net wrote:
How about core redundancy ? effectively this would reduce the amount of
available cores in half in you spread a process to run on two cores at
the same time but with an option to adjust this per process etc... I
don't
On 2012-02-14 18:13, Joshua Isom wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:57 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The
On 2/14/12 9:27 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Julian Elischerjul...@freebsd.org wrote:
but I'm interested in any answers people may have
The way other OSes handle this is by detecting any abnormal amounts of
faults (sometimes it's not the fault of the hardware - eg.
On 15/02/2012, at 3:57 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is about how I can make the OS tolerate
this hardware fault.
The strategy is to checkpoint the state of
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Rayson Ho
Cc: Maninya M; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: OS support for fault tolerance
On 2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
True, but you can't guarantee that a cpu is going to fail in a way that you
can detect like that. what if the clock just stops..
The question is, are we planning to handle 95% of the errors for 99%
of the hardware we run
Brandon Falk wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:57:10AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore desktop computers, suppose one of the cores fails, the
FreeBSD OS crashes. My question is
Mirrored SMP? Even NonStops require a supervisory CPU subsystem to
manage what is working or not.
SMP itself would have to be totally rethought.
My suggestion is to study the examples of NonStop and Guardian-90.
Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/14/12 6:23 AM, Maninya M wrote:
For multicore
On 2/14/12 3:51 PM, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Coming back to the multicore issue:
The problem when a core fails is that it has affected more than its own state.
It will be holding locks on shared resources and may have corrupted shared
memory or asked a device to do the wrong thing. By the time
23 matches
Mail list logo
