Re: question about sendmail
But I don't want send my mail through www.yahoo.it. I want to configure a mail server on my box to practise me in this matter. 1) I want configure my domain without to use bind or similar 2) I want set hostname 3) I want configure a mail server for sending out mails Thanks, Saverio __ Do You Yahoo!? Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi http://mail.yahoo.it
Re: The future of NetBSD by Charles M. Hannum
Jonathon McKitrick wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:58:59AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: : that 75% of the interest in our project has nothing to do with my : project goals but instead are directly associated with work being done : by our relatively small community. I truely appreciate that effort : because it allows me to focus on the part that is most near and dear : to my own heart. Big question: after all the work that will go into the clustering, other than scientific research, what will the average user be able to use such advanced capability for? Jonathon McKitrick -- My other computer is your Windows box. Well, I for one would be thrilled if my high-availability is just as simple as putting another box on my cluster somewhere else on the internet, backups get easy with snapshots like implemented in ZFS. It's a real peace of mind to know that a box is expected to fail at some point and I know that I don't need to figure out what went wrong, I just tell that administrator across the ocean to put another box in that cluster and remove the bad one when he has the time to do it. No more 24h administration, no more emergency calls because of bad hardware, I finally can do the more important stuff in my job, like drinking coffee, socializing with that cute secretary, recreating solutions that is just perfect for a problem I'll never get. Or porting that platform independent python program that some brain dead has found a way to make it exclusive linux. my € 0,02 -- mph
Re: The future of NetBSD by Charles M. Hannum
:On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:58:59AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: :: that 75% of the interest in our project has nothing to do with my :: project goals but instead are directly associated with work being done :: by our relatively small community. I truely appreciate that effort :: because it allows me to focus on the part that is most near and dear :: to my own heart. : :Big question: after all the work that will go into the clustering, other than :scientific research, what will the average user be able to use such advanced :capability for? : :Jonathon McKitrick I held off answering because I became quite interested in what others thought the clustering would be used for. Lets take a big, big step back and look at what the clustering means from a practical standpoint. There are really two situations involved here. First, we certainly can allow you to say 'hey, I am going to take down machine A for maintainance', giving the kernel the time to migrate all resources off of machine A. But being able to flip the power switch on machine A without warning, or otherwise have a machine fail unexpectedly, is another ball of wax entirely. There are only a few ways to cope with such an event: (1) Processes with inaccessible data are killed. High level programs such as 'make' would have to be made aware of this possibility, process the correct error code, and restart the killed children (e.g. compiles and such). In this scenario, only a few programs would have to be made aware of this type of failure in order to reap large benefits from a big cluster, such as the ability to do massively parallel compiles or graphics or other restartable things. (2) You take a snapshot every once in a while and if a process fails on one machine you recover an earlier version of it on another (including rolling back any file modifications that were made). (3) You run the cpu context in tandem on multiple machines so if one machine fails another can take over without a break. This is really an extension of the rollback mechanism, but with additional requirements and it is particularly difficult to accomplish with a threaded program where there may be direct memory interactions between threads. Tandem operation is possible with non-threaded programs but all I/O interactions would have to be synchronization points (and thus performance would suffer). Threaded programs would have to be aware of the tandem operation, or else we make writing to memory a synchronization point too (and even then I am not convinced it is possible to keep two wholely duplicate copies of the program operating in tandem). Needless to say, a fully redundant system is very, very complex. My 2-year goal is NOT to achieve #3. It is to achieve #1 and also have the ability to say 'hey, I'm taking machine BLAH down for maintainance, migrate all the running contexts and related resources off of it please'. Achieving #2 or #3 in a fully transparent fashion is more like a 5-year project, and you would take a very large performance hit in order to achieve it. But lets consider #1... consider the things you actually might want to accomplish with a cluster. Large simulations, huge builds, or simply providing resources to other projects that want to do large simulations or huge builds. Only a few programs like 'make' or the window manager have to actually be aware of the failure case in order to be able to restart the killed programs and make a cluster useful to a very large class of work product. Even programs like sendmail and other services can operate fairly well in such an environment. So what can the average user do ? * The average user can support a third party project by providing cpu, memory, and storage resources to that project. (clearly there are security issues involved, but even so there is a large class of problems that can be addressed). * The average user wants to leverage the cpu and memory resources of all his networked machines for things like builds (buildworld, pkg builds, etc)... batch operations which can be restarted if a failure occurs. So, consider, the average user has his desktop, and most processes are running locally, but he also has other machines and they tie into a named cluster based on the desktop. The cluster would 'see' the desktop's filesystems but otherwise operate as a separate system. The average user would then be able to login to the 'cluster' and run things that then take advantage of all the machine's resources. * The average user might be part of a large project that has access to a cluster.
Re: The future of NetBSD by Charles M. Hannum
On Fri, September 1, 2006 12:45 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote: So what can the average user do ? * The average user can support a third party project by providing cpu, memory, and storage resources to that project. (clearly there are security issues involved, but even so there is a large class of problems that can be addressed). It would be neat, in terms of both speed and community, if we could have binary builds of pkgsrc for DragonFly accomplished by *everyone*.
Re: The future of NetBSD by Charles M. Hannum
I'm starting to imagine the size of the Lisp image I could run on a cluster like the kind being discussed ;-) Jonathon McKitrick -- My other computer is your Windows box.
Re: The future of NetBSD by Charles M. Hannum
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:58:59AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: :: that 75% of the interest in our project has nothing to do with my :: project goals but instead are directly associated with work being done :: by our relatively small community. I truely appreciate that effort :: because it allows me to focus on the part that is most near and dear :: to my own heart. : :Big question: after all the work that will go into the clustering, other than :scientific research, what will the average user be able to use such advanced :capability for? : :Jonathon McKitrick I held off answering because I became quite interested in what others thought the clustering would be used for. Lets take a big, big step back and look at what the clustering means from a practical standpoint. There are really two situations involved here. First, we certainly can allow you to say 'hey, I am going to take down machine A for maintainance', giving the kernel the time to migrate all resources off of machine A. But being able to flip the power switch on machine A without warning, or otherwise have a machine fail unexpectedly, is another ball of wax entirely. There are only a few ways to cope with such an event: (1) Processes with inaccessible data are killed. High level programs such as 'make' would have to be made aware of this possibility, process the correct error code, and restart the killed children (e.g. compiles and such). In this scenario, only a few programs would have to be made aware of this type of failure in order to reap large benefits from a big cluster, such as the ability to do massively parallel compiles or graphics or other restartable things. This is also quite good enough from my point of view, I think my post may have given the impression that I was expecting #3 to appear - I certainly was not, I know how hard that is. In fact #1 is more than I was hoping for, having the make fail and a few windows close but being able to reopen them and restart the make by hand would be orders of magnitude better than I can achieve now with periodic rsync and a fair amount of fiddling around to get environments running on a backup machine when I have a hardware failure. -- C:WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays The computer obeys and wins.| A better way to focus the sun You lose and Bill collects. |licences available see |http://www.sohara.org/
Re: KDE on DFly question about firmware
On 8/31/06, Thomas Schlesinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 30. August 2006 17:52 schrieb Jonathon McKitrick: Two questions that will determine if I try DFly on my new laptop: 1. I see a lot of KDE users here. Does KDE work better that Gnome on DFly? Jonathan, I don't know, if KDE works better than Gnome. but it works good for me. The onliest thing I'm missing is a native battery monitor. There's has been one developed by DesktopBSD, but unfortunately, it's not available in pkgsrc. I'm using gkrellm for battery monitoring. 2. Is it a lot of work getting the firmware working for Centrino wireless? Last winter, I got a new laptop and gave up trying to get DFly to run. It was mostly the wireless firmware that gave me fits figuring out how to upload. There were broken links trying to find all the utils I needed... it was a huge pain. Plus, ubuntu 'just worked'. I use an ipw2200 (second generation Centrino), and it works. The driver for this chip is integrated in the DFly sourcecode (the module is if_iwi), the firmware for the WLAN adapter can be installed via pkgsrc. You can find a howto in our wiki. There are some little problems: 1. I ping in 30-second-intervalls to an address in my WLAN from my notebook (ping -i 30), otherwise I lose connection after a while. Please try: http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~sephe/if_iwi.c.diff See whether it helps. Best Regards, sephe -- Live Free or Die
Re: question about sendmail
Saverio Iacovelli([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2006.09.01 10:51:19 +: But I don't want send my mail through www.yahoo.it. I want to configure a mail server on my box to practise me in this matter. 1) I want configure my domain without to use bind or similar I am not really sure what you want to achieve here. Do you want to set up a mail server to both send and receive mail? My MTA (mail server) is setup to only send mail. I receive mail by popping (fetchmail) from my gmail account. 2) I want set hostname You could start by adding in your /etc/rc.conf file hostname=foo.bar 3) I want configure a mail server for sending out mails I don't use sendmail, I use postfix for this, which really took little work on my part. Thanks, Saverio -- Ian
