Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On 18 Jan 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Fun Things To Do With Disks #9,187: Take a powered-up disk out of a hot-swap storage array and experiment with the gyro effect while the disk spins down in your hands. Higher RPMs give better results; try one of the 'cudas from that E10K in the corner... "if you do it quickly, nobody will notice" Maybe I need to install more 10K drives in my desktop machine; that should keep it from being able to fall over - Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
:PW :PWI have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that :PWis 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) : :Well, 7cm gives 21cm per rotation or 2.1km for 1 rotations. 1 :Rotations Per Minute give around 130km per hour which is somewhere around :0.1MACH. So I expect not problems until the drives reach 5 rpm :-) : :harti :-- :harti brandt, :http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private : [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] It doesn't really matter if the platter exceeds the speed of sound on its outer edge. It isn't actually pushing any air so there will be no sonic boom or any other major issue to deal with. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
| | Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. That's acceleration not velocity :-) The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go KABOOM when booting? Mark -- Nice testing in little China... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Mark Huizer wrote: | | Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. That's acceleration not velocity :-) The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go KABOOM when booting? I have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that is 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: PWMark Huizer wrote: PW | PW | Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. PW PW That's acceleration not velocity :-) PW PW The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the PW velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. PW PW What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr PW 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go PW KABOOM when booting? PW PWI have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that PWis 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) Well, 7cm gives 21cm per rotation or 2.1km for 1 rotations. 1 Rotations Per Minute give around 130km per hour which is somewhere around 0.1MACH. So I expect not problems until the drives reach 5 rpm :-) harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On 30 Jan, Peter Wemm wrote: Mark Huizer wrote: | | Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. That's acceleration not velocity :-) The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go KABOOM when booting? I have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that is 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) Hang on, there's a bug here somewhere: 7cm = .07m, .07m x 3.14... = .22m (per rotation) .22m *15000/60 = 55m/s or ~ 195km/h or 123 mph, not even close to a fast car. We should expect breaking the sound barrier with 75krpm drives (depending on your altitude and air pressure) -Th To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go KABOOM when booting? I have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that is 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) Hang on, there's a bug here somewhere: 7cm = .07m, .07m x 3.14... = .22m (per rotation) .22m *15000/60 = 55m/s or ~ 195km/h or 123 mph, not even close to a fast car. We should expect breaking the sound barrier with 75krpm drives (depending on your altitude and air pressure) That is overlooking that the air rotates in mostly laminar fashion with the platters, isn't it ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
+---[ Poul-Henning Kamp ]-- | In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], |[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | What am I doing wrong? Given a diameter of appr. 7cm, I'd come at appr | 0.7Mach. Does that mean that within a few years my machine will go | KABOOM when booting? | | I have a 15K rpm drive if you want to do a recalculation. I think that | is 1.05Mach, depending on whether you rounded or not. ;-) | | Hang on, there's a bug here somewhere: | | 7cm = .07m, | .07m x 3.14... = .22m (per rotation) | .22m *15000/60 = 55m/s or ~ 195km/h or 123 mph, not even close to a fast car. | | We should expect breaking the sound barrier with 75krpm drives | (depending on your altitude and air pressure) | | That is overlooking that the air rotates in mostly laminar fashion with | the platters, isn't it ? That depends on whether they're African or European drives.. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
"Russell L. Carter" wrote: % No it would not! Back in '94 I ported dmake to FreeBSD % and built just about every numerics package out there % on a 4 CPU cluster. Worked fine, but not much in overall % speedup, because... tadum! Where do you get the source % files, and how do you get the objs back :-) Not low % latency, eh? F-Enet then, G-Enet now :) % %You need a better file server. My previous employer, where the software %staff recompiles 3 million lines of code 20 or 30 times a day, employs %pmake and a farm of Sun Ultra-5 workstations to parallelize their makes. %It allows them to complete a build in an hour that would take a single %Ultra-5 almost 20 hours to complete, even with 3 or 4 builds running in %parallel. The network is 100BaseTX to the workstations and 1000BaseSX %to the (NFS) fileserver. Cool! I'd like to learn more. Then... can you elaborate on the build structure a bit? Is it a single large dir (surely not), or how do the dependencies work? No, there were nearly a hundred directories scattered all over the place. It was actually quite a mess. There were also a couple of hand-enforced relationships that were quite messy. The entire mass was big enough that parallelizing was hugely beneficial even with the ugly mess the build system was. For instance, with ACE/TAO (many hours to build when including orbsvcs) there's only a few large directories that can be parallelized over say 10 cpus by gmake, at least. These are the types of directories that can benefit easily. Ideally, with no overhead for job starting, you would be able to use n processors to compile n files all at the same time. Realistically you're quite limited by the network bandwidth and the speed of the file server, but since compiling is not a completely I/O bound process, you can do perhaps some- what better than just an obvious bandwidth multipler. For instance, if you have 100BaseTX on the build machines and 1000Base?? on the file server, you make actually be able to utilize 12 or 14 or maybe even 20 build machines before saturating the fileserver. The rest have ten files or less where each file takes maybe 45s to compile on a 1GHz processor. There are quite a few of these. And directories are compiled sequentially. If you replace your recursive Makefiles with a single dependency tree, it doesn't matter how many files are in a directory. You can launch enough compiles to complete the directory, building the executable or library or whatever is made there, because you can be sure that all if it's dependencies have already been built, and that nothing that depends on it will get touched until it has completed. There is a good discussion of this on the Perforce web pages, in their discussion of Jam/MR, a somewhat newer tool similar to Make. Jamfiles are never recursive; tools are provided for building Jamfiles that describe the entire project so the dependency tree is completely expressed. % Nowadays, you'd want to "globus ify" things, rather than % use use PVM. % % But critically, speedup would only happen if jobs were % allocated at a higher level than they are now. % % Now for building something like a full version of TAO, % why that might work. But even then, a factor of 2x is % unlikely until the dependencies are factored out at % the directory level. % %See the paper "Recursive Make Considered Harmful." Make is an amazing %tool when used correctly. That's not the problem, unfortunately. I've never had a problem rebuilding dependencies unnecessarily, or any of those other problems described. Well precompiled headers would be really really cool. The problem, again, is that parallelism is limited by the directory structure, and the directory structure is entirely rational. The directory structure has nothing to do with the Makefiles. To obtain the goal the paper suggests, you replace the recursive Makefiles with a single top-level Makefile that describes ALL of the targets and ALL of the dependencies. Note that this does not require a single mono- lithic Makefile; the top level Makefile can be a shell that includes per-directory Makefiles. The important part is to get a single dependency tree with no cycles in the graph. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On 20-Jan-01 Wes Peters wrote: "Russell L. Carter" wrote: details snipped %See the paper "Recursive Make Considered Harmful." Make is an amazing %tool when used correctly. That's not the problem, unfortunately. I've never had a problem rebuilding dependencies unnecessarily, or any of those other problems described. Well precompiled headers would be really really cool. The problem, again, is that parallelism is limited by the directory structure, and the directory structure is entirely rational. The directory structure has nothing to do with the Makefiles. To obtain the goal the paper suggests, you replace the recursive Makefiles with a single top-level Makefile that describes ALL of the targets and ALL of the dependencies. Note that this does not require a single mono- lithic Makefile; the top level Makefile can be a shell that includes per-directory Makefiles. The important part is to get a single dependency tree with no cycles in the graph. I was so impressed by the clarity in the paper and dicussions with friends that use Plan 9's "mk", that I put together "remake". This is a Makefile framework that implements the per-directory Makefiles to build the dependency tree. If anyone one wants to take a look it's at http://www.ragnet.demon.co.uk/RM/remake.html I haven't used it for a year or two and can only point to http://www.ragnet.demon.co.uk/mynews as an example of its use. If anyone gets interested drop me a line and I will try and remember how it works. Duncan -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message --- Duncan Barclay | God smiles upon the little children, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | the alcoholics, and the permanently stoned. [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Steven King To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
I'm going to try these ideas out, thanks for the pointers. I'm highly motivated to stop waiting so long :-). And a nice use for the systems that have been piling up, if this works out. I'll be reporting back... Cheers, Russell % %On 20-Jan-01 Wes Peters wrote: % "Russell L. Carter" wrote: % %details snipped % % %See the paper "Recursive Make Considered Harmful." Make is an amazing % %tool when used correctly. % % That's not the problem, unfortunately. I've never had a problem % rebuilding dependencies unnecessarily, or any of those % other problems described. Well precompiled headers would be % really really cool. The problem, again, is that parallelism % is limited by the directory structure, and the directory structure % is entirely rational. % % The directory structure has nothing to do with the Makefiles. To % obtain the goal the paper suggests, you replace the recursive % Makefiles with a single top-level Makefile that describes ALL of the % targets and ALL of the dependencies. Note that this does not require % a single mono- lithic Makefile; the top level Makefile can be a shell % that includes per-directory Makefiles. The important part is to get a % single dependency tree with no cycles in the graph. % %I was so impressed by the clarity in the paper and dicussions with %friends that use Plan 9's "mk", that I put together "remake". This is a %Makefile framework that implements the per-directory Makefiles to build %the dependency tree. If anyone one wants to take a look it's at %http://www.ragnet.demon.co.uk/RM/remake.html %I haven't used it for a year or two and can only point to %http://www.ragnet.demon.co.uk/mynews %as an example of its use. % %If anyone gets interested drop me a line and I will try and remember how %it works. % %Duncan % To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:41:15PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote: Nowadays, you'd want to "globus ify" things, rather than use use PVM. For those who want a simple, stupid way to do this, making an MPI application is a convenient first step. MPI is pretty similar to PVM except that I don't know of anyone in the high performance computing community that still uses PVM for new applications (I'm sure they exist, but they are not exactly common.) For some reason the Open Source community still has this bizare idea that PVM is the way to go. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brooks Davis wrote: For those who want a simple, stupid way to do this, making an MPI application is a convenient first step. MPI is pretty similar to PVM except that I don't know of anyone in the high performance computing community that still uses PVM for new applications (I'm sure they exist, but they are not exactly common.) For some reason the Open Source community still has this bizare idea that PVM is the way to go. MPI is way to heavy for process spawning. We have measured appallingly long times here on our clusters, up to 30 seconds just to get things running on 64 nodes. I keep offering this, and keep getting no takers, but I do have a tool called vex that will get 128 processes running on 128 nodes in 1/2 second. See it at http://www.lanl.gov/~rminnich/. That's the level of performance you want for a start. It actually runs tons better on FreeBSD than on Linux due to Linux TCP silliness. You really want a single login, single IP address, cluster. There's an example: http://www.scyld.com. You need a process model that's much more capable than what we have now. Three ways to go that I can think of. The worst is to nfs-mount all the /proc on the front-end. Yuck. The second-coolest-thing to do is to build a "bproc"-like interface for freebsd. The absolute coolest thing is (do I repeat myself :-) put plan-9 style remote process and private name spaces into freebsd. Before you comment on the plan9 idea, if you have not read the docs, go read them. Bproc gives you a global name space for processes, which is ok but not as scalable as the plan9 approach. But the Scyld stuff is quite nice, we're using it here on two clusters. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
"Russell L. Carter" wrote: %Uwe Pierau wrote: % % Jamie Heckford wrote: % # Hi, % # Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included % # with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? % % Maybe you mean something like this... % http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/index.html % ?! % %Yes! % %When is somebody going to get around to making a PVM version of make? %Wouldn't that help those "build world" times a bit? No it would not! Back in '94 I ported dmake to FreeBSD and built just about every numerics package out there on a 4 CPU cluster. Worked fine, but not much in overall speedup, because... tadum! Where do you get the source files, and how do you get the objs back :-) Not low latency, eh? F-Enet then, G-Enet now :) You need a better file server. My previous employer, where the software staff recompiles 3 million lines of code 20 or 30 times a day, employs pmake and a farm of Sun Ultra-5 workstations to parallelize their makes. It allows them to complete a build in an hour that would take a single Ultra-5 almost 20 hours to complete, even with 3 or 4 builds running in parallel. The network is 100BaseTX to the workstations and 1000BaseSX to the (NFS) fileserver. Nowadays, you'd want to "globus ify" things, rather than use use PVM. But critically, speedup would only happen if jobs were allocated at a higher level than they are now. Now for building something like a full version of TAO, why that might work. But even then, a factor of 2x is unlikely until the dependencies are factored out at the directory level. See the paper "Recursive Make Considered Harmful." Make is an amazing tool when used correctly. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Sorry, the wrong URL. http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rminnich ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
% No it would not! Back in '94 I ported dmake to FreeBSD % and built just about every numerics package out there % on a 4 CPU cluster. Worked fine, but not much in overall % speedup, because... tadum! Where do you get the source % files, and how do you get the objs back :-) Not low % latency, eh? F-Enet then, G-Enet now :) % %You need a better file server. My previous employer, where the software %staff recompiles 3 million lines of code 20 or 30 times a day, employs %pmake and a farm of Sun Ultra-5 workstations to parallelize their makes. %It allows them to complete a build in an hour that would take a single %Ultra-5 almost 20 hours to complete, even with 3 or 4 builds running in %parallel. The network is 100BaseTX to the workstations and 1000BaseSX %to the (NFS) fileserver. Cool! I'd like to learn more. Then... can you elaborate on the build structure a bit? Is it a single large dir (surely not), or how do the dependencies work? For instance, with ACE/TAO (many hours to build when including orbsvcs) there's only a few large directories that can be parallelized over say 10 cpus by gmake, at least. The rest have ten files or less where each file takes maybe 45s to compile on a 1GHz processor. There are quite a few of these. And directories are compiled sequentially. % Nowadays, you'd want to "globus ify" things, rather than % use use PVM. % % But critically, speedup would only happen if jobs were % allocated at a higher level than they are now. % % Now for building something like a full version of TAO, % why that might work. But even then, a factor of 2x is % unlikely until the dependencies are factored out at % the directory level. % %See the paper "Recursive Make Considered Harmful." Make is an amazing %tool when used correctly. That's not the problem, unfortunately. I've never had a problem rebuilding dependencies unnecessarily, or any of those other problems described. Well precompiled headers would be really really cool. The problem, again, is that parallelism is limited by the directory structure, and the directory structure is entirely rational. Thanks! Russell To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Clustering FreeBSD
| Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. That's acceleration not velocity :-) The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. Hmm. That would make a FreeBSD cluster quite useful as a garden shredder, even with lower disc rotation speeds I'd imagine. Mind you, taking the covers off the disks void your warranty. Kees Jan You are only young once, but you can stay immature all your life. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
"Koster, K.J." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. Hmm. That would make a FreeBSD cluster quite useful as a garden shredder, even with lower disc rotation speeds I'd imagine. Fun Things To Do With Disks #9,187: Take a powered-up disk out of a hot-swap storage array and experiment with the gyro effect while the disk spins down in your hands. Higher RPMs give better results; try one of the 'cudas from that E10K in the corner... "if you do it quickly, nobody will notice" DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 01:17:36PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: "Koster, K.J." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. Hmm. That would make a FreeBSD cluster quite useful as a garden shredder, even with lower disc rotation speeds I'd imagine. Fun Things To Do With Disks #9,187: Take a powered-up disk out of a hot-swap storage array and experiment with the gyro effect while the disk spins down in your hands. Higher RPMs give better results; try one of the 'cudas from that E10K in the corner... "if you do it quickly, nobody will notice" Sure.. as long as it is RAID5, 1 or 0+1 nobody will notice. Done it myself ;) -- | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlandsemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |/|/ / / /( (_) Bultehttp://www.freebsd.org http://www.nlfug.nl To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Uwe Pierau wrote: Jamie Heckford wrote: # Hi, # Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included # with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? Maybe you mean something like this... http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/index.html ?! Yes! When is somebody going to get around to making a PVM version of make? Wouldn't that help those "build world" times a bit? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
%Uwe Pierau wrote: % % Jamie Heckford wrote: % # Hi, % # Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included % # with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? % % Maybe you mean something like this... % http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/index.html % ?! % %Yes! % %When is somebody going to get around to making a PVM version of make? %Wouldn't that help those "build world" times a bit? No it would not! Back in '94 I ported dmake to FreeBSD and built just about every numerics package out there on a 4 CPU cluster. Worked fine, but not much in overall speedup, because... tadum! Where do you get the source files, and how do you get the objs back :-) Not low latency, eh? F-Enet then, G-Enet now :) Nowadays, you'd want to "globus ify" things, rather than use use PVM. But critically, speedup would only happen if jobs were allocated at a higher level than they are now. Now for building something like a full version of TAO, why that might work. But even then, a factor of 2x is unlikely until the dependencies are factored out at the directory level. Russell %-- %"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" % %Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ % % %To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] %with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message % To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Jamie Heckford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play with and see how fast FreeBSD can go. I'd say about 2.8 m/s/s, given sufficient height. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jamie Heckford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play with and see how fast FreeBSD can go. I'd say about 2.8 m/s/s, given sufficient height. Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
+---[ Dag-Erling Smorgrav ]-- | Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Jamie Heckford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play | with and see how fast FreeBSD can go. | I'd say about 2.8 m/s/s, given sufficient height. | | Doh! I mean 9.8 m/s/s, of course. That's acceleration not velocity :-) The terminal velocity of a PC case is probably a lot lower than the velocity of an outer edge of a 1 RPM drive. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
* Jamie Heckford [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010116 09:29] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD Plz. let me know! :) There's a couple of things in ports (do a search) to do this, they seem to be a bit underpowered at the moment, there's also a few pretty powerful commercial packages out there, you can probably find them on the vendors' pages here: http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/software_bycat.html best of luck, -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On 16 Jan, Jamie Heckford wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD Plz. let me know! :) I've been working on some stuff for over a year, but it nowhere near anything. What was it you were planning on doing? Jessem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Clustering FreeBSD
The first question I have when someone brings this up is, "please define what you mean by clustering". There are multiple interpretations. Can you elaborate? -Charles -Original Message- From: Jamie Heckford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Clustering FreeBSD Hi, Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD Plz. let me know! :) Thanks, -- Jamie Heckford Chief Network Engineer Psi-Domain - Innovative Linux Solutions. Ask Us How. = email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web:http://www.psi-domain.co.uk/ tel:+44 (0)1737 789 246 fax:+44 (0)1737 789 245 mobile: +44 (0)7866 724 224 = To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play with and see how fast FreeBSD can go. Sort of thing where those two guys clustered about 200 486's or something stupid like that.. :) Jamie On 2001.01.16 18:31:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 16 Jan, Jamie Heckford wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD Plz. let me know! :) I've been working on some stuff for over a year, but it nowhere near anything. What was it you were planning on doing? Jessem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
%In all honesty, I am just looking for something to play %with and see how fast FreeBSD can go. % %Sort of thing where those two guys clustered about 200 486's %or something stupid like that.. Go to google and search for Beowulf. Or Mosix. Or Ron Minnich :-) Or "smart networks", if all you want to do is serve up web pages. Russell %:) % %Jamie % %On 2001.01.16 18:31:43 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % % % On 16 Jan, Jamie Heckford wrote: % Hi, % % Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included % with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? % % I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing % some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD % % Plz. let me know! :) % % I've been working on some stuff for over a year, but % it nowhere near anything. What was it you were planning on doing? % % Jessem. % % % % % % % % %To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] %with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message % To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 05:36:51PM +, Jamie Heckford wrote:
Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included
with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD?
Install the pvm port (ports/net/pvm) on the machines.
I've played around with this a bit, and it's quite fun to watch.
Check out the X11 fractal demo ("xep").
There's also a port of povray (ports/graphics/pvmpov) which uses PVM
to distribute it's processing.
Links:
http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/ - Beowulf-style cluster using FreeBSD
http://www.beowulf.org/ - more Beowulf-style clusters
http://www.epm.ornl.gov/pvm/pvm_home.html
http://www.netlib.org/pvm3/book/pvm-book.html - PVM information
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
Jamie Heckford wrote: # Hi, # Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included # with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? Maybe you mean something like this... http://acme.ecn.purdue.edu/index.html ?! Uwe To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Clustering FreeBSD
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 05:36:51PM +, Jamie Heckford scribbled: | Does anyone have any details of Open Source, or software included | with FreeBSD that allows the clustering of FreeBSD? | | I have 55 racks sitting here to play with, and want to start doing | some serious work (for me anyway!) with fBSD Beowulf runs perfectly on FreeBSD. I've admined one such cluster. The stuff is all in the ports. And Beowulf is free, open source. Try PVM and MPICH. However, the real question here is: What do you want to do? Clustering does not really help a lot of things. You really need programs written with parallel computing in mind. www.beowulf.org -- +--+ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://peorth.iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. | +--+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
