Re: [K12OSN] mosix - real benfit ? was: /. post
James Jensen (jmsjnsnsatx@yahoo.com)
Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Very cool! That's the kind of info that really counts (even if it's "bad"
news). So you do not cluster the thin-clients, just the servers, right?
It would be interesting to get the openMosix developer's take on this, but
you are right on, some apps fork better then others and some not at all (no
shared memory, apache, MySQL, etc.). My guess is though that you are
seeing *some* benefit from the clustering even if those two apps don't play
nice. The userspace tools give you flexibility in cluster management, I
wonder if a script couldn't be developed to tune for instances of those two
programs? Just a thought...
Do you run openMosixview? If so, what kind of efficiency are you seeing
from the cluster?
James Jensen
<><><><><><><>
"Perilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess
ourselves.". -- JRR Tolkien
--- Joseph Morelock wrote:
> Case in point, apps such as Mozilla and OpenOffice see very little (if
> any) speed boost from the clustering environment. IMHO, those are the
> usual suspects in a slow Linux lab. Thirty kids on the server(s) at
> once, using an app that probably isn't multithreaded by design means
> that you will still have one server taking the bulk of the load for
> that app.
> We have installed the OpenMosix patches and compiled the drivers for
> the gigabit ethernet nic's and have a four-server cluster running two
> Linux labs (not used at the same time). We still have the bottleneck on
> those two apps (the ones that we will rely heavily upon) no matter how
> we slice it. A true load-balancing solution should push each request of
> "Mozilla" or what ever on to the server with the lightest
> load...unfortunately, either its math is bad, or our install is not
> tuned, but that is simply not happening.
> And this is not a cabling or network issue, either. We have a fiber
> backbone, and these particular Linux terminals are home-runned back to
> the closet where they are plugged into a switch that goes directly to
> the server(s).
> So...where to go from here. It is not practical to have to build a
> dual-processor, mega-gig, super-doohicky, monster scuzzy, massivo ram
> machine for every ten to fifteen machines. There must be a better way.
> We have 60 LTSP terminals currently and hope to add another 30 by
> year's end. I am sure that we are not the only ones looking for a
> solution for an automagically-configuring load-balancing server setup.
> We have taken the first step, and hope to find our way in the near
> future...
>
>
>
> Joe
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
K12OSN mailing list
K12OSN@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn
For more info see