From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 15:54:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 15:54:02 -0400 Received: from mnh-1-20.mv.com ([207.22.10.52]:64265 "EHLO ccure.karaya.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 15:54:01 -0400 Message-Id: <200205062055.PAA04067@ccure.karaya.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, user-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Re: UML is now self-hosting! In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 May 2002 18:14:27 +0200." <20020506181427.K918@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 15:55:52 -0500 From: Jeff Dike Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org lmb@suse.de said: > but spreading an instance across multiple nodes is nowhere as simple > as it seems; It is if you want to be sufficiently stupid about it :-) > where do you keep OS data, It gets faulted from host to host as needed. > IO access, This scheme (and any clustering scheme, I think) would need back channels for one node to access the devices of another > scheduling decisions, This machine thinks it's a normal SMP box, so scheduling happens as normal > inter-node communication in the first place, how to deal > with node failure etc... Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the clustering world, but I was under the impression that with a normal SSI cluster, the nodes are like CPUs in an SMP box - if one fails, the whole thing dies. In other words, that SSI clustering and HA clustering are pretty disjoint. Jeff