High performance computing systems are very popular for some time. The
problems of Hign Avalibility computer systems are common in the same
way.
The question is how a package management system as rpm5 can address
the problems of such environments. I have not found any reference to
such issues, in
On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:37 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Johnson n3...@mac.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:47 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
High performance computing systems are very popular for some time. The
problems of Hign Avalibility computer systems are common
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jeff Johnson n3...@mac.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2009, at 9:37 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Johnson n3...@mac.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:47 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
High performance computing systems are very popular for some
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
Fascinating topic. I think jbj's deliniation
into package vs. config management is useful.
Without going into a massive discussion, not that
I'm necessarily competent to do so anyway, let me
pick just one item and worry at it, and
On Monday, 07 December 2009, at 15:37:10 (+0100),
devzero2000 wrote:
Distributing system images with modest per-node customization tends to be
simpler than per-node package management. Package management is useful for
constructing the system images. But PM cannot compete with system images
On Monday, 07 December 2009, at 22:31:00 (+0100),
devzero2000 wrote:
This is your, informed, opinion. That i respect. But not for this i
have agree: but let me see as the time go on.
Remember the mantra: Do one thing, and do it well. You can have a
tool that's good at one thing or mediocre
