re[2]: Clusterwide pids

[Greg Freemyer <freemyer@NorcrossGroup.com>]

David,

 >>  > Can the CPID module be written in such a way as to allow multiple
 >>  > cluster membership algorithms?

 >>  I strongly doubt, due to the problems on "live" new memberships. Anyway,
 >>  on all the cases that I know on HP computing,  there is not a "multiple
 >>  cluster membership" concept. We used to use  something like "partitioning
 >>  the cluster". I thing that maybe is better not allowing multiple
 >>  memberships, and allowing partitions and groups of jobs; in a way that a
 >>  node can  be in more than one partition, and a job of a group of jobs can
 >>  only migrate inside its partition.

I did not mean to imply simultaneously.

I merely meant: could the CPID module be written generically enough that it could interface to the multiple membership algorithms already in use. (i.e. I'm sure FailSafe, Kimberlite, SteelEye, Beowulf, PVM, SSI for Linux Clusters, etc. each have their own membership algorithm.)

I was not trying to imply that one node could be simultaneously a member of a PVM cluster and a SSI for Linux Cluster.  That seems way beyond the current scope of things.  I guess it is conceivable that with enough common infrastructure it could be done, but I would not consider that a design goal.

What I was concerned about is that each of the membership algorithms and implementations has its own idiosyncrasies and we would need to insure that a CPID module would not have to know which membership algorithm it was working with.

Greg Freemyer
Internet Engineer
Deployment and Integration Specialist
The Norcross Group
www.NorcrossGroup.com


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