On September 14, 2017 11:36:41 AM GMT+02:00, Peter Tribble <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Miles Fidelman ><[email protected]> >wrote: > >> There does seem to be some work on micro-kernals, environments that >run on >> bare iron (e.g., Erlang on bare iron has potential), >> >Yes, I've spent time looking at unikernels (and rump kernels), although >they're >really fat processes that still need an OS layer above to coordinate >them. > >> and continuing work on cloud stacks. But still... not as much >innovation >> as one might hope for. And my personal bugaboo - work on >> single-system-image clusters has basically disappeared. >> >That's a huge gap. But most people throw an ETOOHARD error and rebuild >everything in microservices and deploy an army of squirrels. > >Whether you have to do the single image all through the OS is another >matter, >though. You can imagine a shared filesystem (and that's another area >needing >more work) coupled with something like distributed SMF doing >essentially >the same thing. > >> Miles FIdelman >> >> >> On 9/13/17 1:01 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> In my OpenSolaris t-shirt collection, I have one with the slogan: >> >> "Innovation happens everywhere" >> >> I'm not sure this is *entirely* true; Solaris 10 was a massive nexus >> of innovation that has proliferated out to other operating systems >> over the last decade. Frankly, there's not much else been happening >> in systems development. >> >> From what I can see, between the cloying boredom of Linux monoculture >> and the dead hand of POSIX "standardisation", systems have stagnated. >> >> Even in illumos, we're largely doing a bit of light gardening - a bit >> of weeding here, a bit of pruning there, replanting the odd bush. But >> no real landscaping is being done. >> >> Which begs the question - is systems innovation done and dusted? >> >> Or is there more to come? >> >> And if there is more, what sort of new features are wanted? >> >> At which point I open up the floor to anyone who wants to contribute. >> >> (Note: I'm not talking about a gaps analysis. We [illumos] need more >> drivers, more applications ported. We already know that, and it's >just >> copying, not innovation. So there is an interesting subject there, >but >> if someone wants to follow that then please create a new thread.) >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- >> -Peter Tribble >> http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> -- >> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >> >> *illumos-discuss* | Archives >> ><https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/discussions/T83f198c8597cf8e3-M45f4a41369c21506519aa999> >> | Powered by Topicbox <https://topicbox.com> >> >>
Yes. That 'distributed SMF' thing, too ;) For me that would be an ability to see and influence service states on remote envs (including neighboring other zones), so e.g. if a tracked instance of database got up somewhere, start this appserver here (or the opposite for orderly shutdowns). I had some clumsy PoCs back in the day, but nothing good to share except a few ideas ;( Also, monitoring of service state (other than just the process running) - similar to what I bolted on with zones-as-a-service, or vbox svc's, or cataliner-framework - to take action when the service stalled, to complete the SMF startup method when the service is actually ready to serve (so dependants can actually contact it), etc. There are also some good sides and unit types in systemd - might look at transplanting some nifty ideas back from those who emulate SMF, poorly in some cases ;) Jim -- Typos courtesy of K-9 Mail on my Android ------------------------------------------ illumos-discuss Archives: https://illumos.topicbox.com/groups/discuss/discussions/T83f198c8597cf8e3-Mf41f5fe8176a8fd16e9f03d6 Powered by Topicbox: https://topicbox.com
