[Beowulf] openMosix ending
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Geoff Galitz geoff at galitz.orgMon Jul 16 11:51:40 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] openMosix ending
- Next message: [Beowulf] openMosix ending
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > Yeah, but it has nearly always had a few tragic flaws. One was that it was always basically a hack of a specific kernel version and image, meaning that if you used it you were outside of a working kernel update stream. The second was that it was basically a hack of a specific kernel version and image at all, where one really would prefer a tool that did the same thing outside of kernel space (like Condor, for example). It survived those flaws, of course -- but it cannot survive the advent of virtualization, which will provide new pathways for this sort of thing to be done with far greater ease and stability. > The lack of kernel supported checkpointing capabilities in the linux kernel is something that has baffled me or a while. I wonder if it was ever submitted and then rejected? It seems a natural fit for many organizations. Are there hardware limitations in the x86 world? Modern x86 virtualization is great for the most part, but moving around entire VM images rather than a group of threads seems a little... kludgy. Mind you, I'm a big proponent of virtualization due the positives it provides. -geoff
- Previous message: [Beowulf] openMosix ending
- Next message: [Beowulf] openMosix ending
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
