Re: [PATCH gnumach] RFC: Create a malleable syscall interface.

[Justus Winter]

"Brent W. Baccala"  writes:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Justus Winter  wrote:
>
>>
>> % ~/build/machometer/machometer
>> N: 33554432 (1<<25), qlimit: 5
>> mach_print:   5s75us171.363354ns5835553.391 (1/s)
>>nullmsg:   6s33us188.648701ns5300858.136 (1/s)
>>   producer:  27s65us824.034214ns1213541.844 (1/s)
>>   consumer:  27s65us824.034214ns1213541.844 (1/s)
>>
>>
> Where can I find "machometer"?

http://darnassus.sceen.net/cgit/teythoon/machometer.git/

[I had a lot of stuff there, then something terrible happened to
darnassus, and I did not re-add everything yet.]

Justus


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFC: Revised authentication protocol

[Brent W. Baccala]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Olaf Buddenhagen 
wrote:

> I'm a bit confused here: my understanding was that you essentially
> wanted to implement a "single system instance" cluster. I would have
> thought that would imply only a single instance of most servers --
> including auth -- rather than separate ones for each node?...
>

Well, I'm starting with a network transport for Mach messages that should
be usable for remote filesystem and remote process execution.  I've thought
a little bit about how to reconfigure the boot process to use centralized
auth and proc servers, but only a little bit.  Right now, I'm trying to
achieve one of the goals on the translator wish list: "network file system
by just forwarding RPCs

"

Also, as Richard noted, it might be best to use distributed processes.  A
cluster filesystem, for example, might be implemented a bit like unionfs,
with the local filesystems on each node underlying a global filesystem.
The global filesystem could be implemented by a group of processes, one per
node.  A process's file objects would generally be handled by the global
filesystem's local process, which would use the underlying local filesystem
for replicated files, cached files, locally created files, etc., and only
hand off to remote nodes for files unavailable on the local filesystem.

I see your point, though.  It would be ironic to modify the auth protocol
only to end up with a cluster using a single auth server.

agape
brent