"Hall, Ken (GTS)" wrote, re MapFS being Open Sourced:
>There's a project page on Sourceforge for it, but it hasn't been updated
>since 2005.
That sounds about right. Given that UnionFS is more vibrant, I'd go with that,
myself, nowadays...
...phsiii
-
.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:20 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Stateless Linux for zSeries
Marcy Cortes wrote:
>We used to use Levanta (now out of business) whose mapfs was based on
>unionfs. We didn't see any CPU r
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Shawn Wells wrote:
> Kinda sorta. We'll be going down the FUSE route. It's being targeted
> for our next updated, RHEL 5.4. This work is being done via Red Hat
> BugZilla 252372
That approach is more likely to cause the higher CPU overhead that I
talked about.
Behalf Of Phil
Smith III
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:20 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Stateless Linux for zSeries
Marcy Cortes wrote:
>We used to use Levanta (now out of business) whose mapfs was based on
>unionfs. We didn't see any CPU reduction when we co
Marcy Cortes wrote:
>We used to use Levanta (now out of business) whose mapfs was based on
>unionfs. We didn't see any CPU reduction when we converted off of it.
>It did use a lot of CPU at shutdown time, but that may have been more
>of a bug than a necessity ;)
For PoE* reasons, I'm obliged t
Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
We're on Red Hat, so same question applies to that distro, if anyone
knows.
Kinda sorta. We'll be going down the FUSE route. It's being targeted
for our next updated, RHEL 5.4. This work is being done via Red Hat
BugZilla 252372
Not familiar with FUSE?
http://en.wikip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
>
> Most of the "stateless" implementations I've seen seem to rely on "bind
> mounts", but that seems to be a bit of a hack. "Union" mounting, such
> as "Unionfs" look like it would be a cleaner approach, but I can't find
> out
On Thursday 14 May 2009 12:06, Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
>I would think then that bind mounts would have similar issue. Has anyone
> looked into this?
You mean using more CPU? I wouldn't think so because if I remember correctly
a bind-mount just causes another indirection through the mount table w
>>> On 5/14/2009 at 11:17 AM, "Edmund R. MacKenty"
>>>
wrote:
-snip-
> Mark, do you know if Novell plans to make unionfs (or anything like it)
> available in SLES anytime soon? Can we nudge them in that direction?
I wouldn't call them plans, per se, so much as an inclination. From looking
t
y by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for
your cooperation."
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Rob van
der Heij
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:53 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Stat
-390] Stateless Linux for zSeries
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
> Most of the "stateless" implementations I've seen seem to rely on "bind
> mounts", but that seems to be a bit of a hack. "Union" mounting, such
> as "Unionfs
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
> Most of the "stateless" implementations I've seen seem to rely on "bind
> mounts", but that seems to be a bit of a hack. "Union" mounting, such
> as "Unionfs" look like it would be a cleaner approach, but I can't find
> out if there's a w
We're on Red Hat, so same question applies to that distro, if anyone
knows.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Edmund R. MacKenty
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:18 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Stat
On Thursday 14 May 2009 11:01, Hall, Ken (GTS) wrote:
>Most of the "stateless" implementations I've seen seem to rely on "bind
>mounts", but that seems to be a bit of a hack. "Union" mounting, such
>as "Unionfs" look like it would be a cleaner approach, but I can't find
>out if there's a workable
't find
out if there's a workable implementation of that. Any ideas?
I've pulled the unionfs patch, but I'm reluctant to go to the trouble of
maintaining yet another custom kernel module.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.ed
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:10, David Boyes wrote:
>On 5/13/09 3:16 PM, "Alan Ackerman"
>wrote:
>> Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot do
>> "stateless computing" on zSeries.
>
>In a word: bunk.
>
>> Has anyo
t [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
David Boyes
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:11 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Stateless Linux for zSeries
On 5/13/09 3:16 PM, "Alan Ackerman"
wrote:
> Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot
> do &
Alan Ackerman wrote:
Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot do
"stateless computing" on zSeries. Of course, the first question is
"What the heck is stateless computing?"
I found some links:
Stateless Linux at <http://fedoraproject.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Alan Ackerman
wrote:
> Has anyone had any experience with building a stateless Linux on zSeries?
>
> Any words of wisdom?
As long as you can step back from the particular implementation at
hand, many of the installations I worked with already do this w
On 5/13/09 3:16 PM, "Alan Ackerman"
wrote:
> Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot do
> "stateless computing" on zSeries.
In a word: bunk.
> Has anyone had any experience with building a stateless Linux on zSeries?
The Novell sta
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:16:58 -0700
Alan Ackerman wrote:
> Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot do
> "stateless computing" on zSeries.
There is nothing in any of the concepts or implementations stopping you
doing it on Z. Nobody may have run the code in question
iband, and Infiniband switches, etc. Looked like something out of the
movie Alien. Even the midrange support folks were unsure about it's
reliability.
> I found some links:
>
> Stateless Linux at <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StatelessLinux>.
>
> Linux on IBM eServer z
On May 13, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Alan Ackerman wrote:
Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you
cannot do
"stateless computing" on zSeries. Of course, the first question is
"What the heck is stateless computing?"
I found some links:
Stat
Someone here says we should not do Linux on zSeries because you cannot do
"stateless computing" on zSeries. Of course, the first question is
"What the heck is stateless computing?"
I found some links:
Stateless Linux at <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StatelessLinux&
Does anybody have much experience setting up "stateless linux" under the
RHEL distro?
Regards,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NCCI
Boca Raton, Florida
561.893.2415
greetings / avec mes meilleures salutations / Cordialmente
mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vänlig hälsning
The information contain
> This was forwarded to me by a co-worker. I'm wondering (assuming it all
> works) what kind of applicability this might have for Linux on z/VM?
I hope I'm on-track / on-topic with this response.
In my own work, for reference and other reasons, I've got a
home-grown Linux that has no specific p
On Maw, 2004-09-14 at 19:02, Jim Sibley wrote:
> The procedure has the following statement:
>
> [StatelessLinux]
> name=Stateless Linux
> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/stateless
I doubt dmalcolm reads this list so suggestions on statelsss Linux
improvements are best sen
The procedure has the following statement:
[StatelessLinux]
name=Stateless Linux
baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/stateless
Gripe:
Why does RedHat insist that we connect to their sites
to get updates (up2date) and do builds. I happen to
have a number of systems that do NOT connect to
This was forwarded to me by a co-worker. I'm wondering (assuming it all
works) what kind of applicability this might have for Linux on z/VM?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 5:44 AM
Subject: Stateless Linux project
An new approach for handlin
29 matches
Mail list logo
