[ale] mosix clusters?

[Jeff Hubbs]

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 21:09, Stephen Turner wrote:
> my reason for implementing mosix was to take all computers and balance the
> load, some times of the day eg, other than early morning and right after
> lunch break, email is minimal, it would be a shame to waste cpu cycles on
> any computer or ram, altho its going to happen reguardless im sure.
> minimizing waste however is a biggie, and for samba well, it probobly
> should have its own server... how would you suggest rigging these
> applications in a network environment?
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 

Doesn't sound like a job for Mosix.  Your motives are good, but if there
isn't actually a computational choke point somewhere, there's no sense
trying to create a solution for one.  

When computers were more expensive, I favored a do-everything-on-one-box
approach.  But, in practical terms, there's a lot to be said for
breaking things up, not the least of which being that box-type issues
with one box will tend to not affect another.  Treating boxes as being
little more than effectively disposable junk enables you to think more
in terms of keeping your various critical functions from impacting one
another.

You've left out a whole lot of crucial information (i.e., number of
users, doing what) but I can safely tell you that yes, your file server
should be its own box and that if you're using Samba to provide PDC/BDC
for Windows clients (I'm assuming Samba does BDC now; that didn't used
to work), both PDC and BDC should be their own box, even if they're
486es.  The Samba server should be the one that makes heavy use of RAID,
whether in software or not.  So, the box with the best mass storage
should probably be the one that runs Samba.  That machine needs a tape
drive unless you're going to establish a separate backup server, but
even then it'd be a good idea to still have a tape drive in it.

- Jeff


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.