Re: A proposal for a General Clustering Framework

[Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>]

Greg Lindahl wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 04:08:01PM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> 
> > The third one has different
> > semantics, and shouldn't be made to look like the other two...  [and it's
> > probably not that useful anyway...]
> 
> No! Distributed delivery without order coherancy is fine for things
> like performance data, where you happen to not mind occasional missing
> data. And there can be a significant savings to not have to deliver
> things in order, or reliably.

Actually, delivering things reliably is practically free with heartbeat (it
uses NAKs, not ACKs) see http://linux-ha.org/comm/ .  Doing it with ordering
is harder, and reasonably expensive.

Performance data seems different from event data (which is what was under
discussion).

Performance data is another whole can of worms.  Another day for that ...

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr@unix.sh

Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/