I vote for making the toolserver the head-node to a much larger beowulf cluster that has a well configured job scheduler. The data that needs to be crunched is already right there - it makes sense to put a research cluster there as well.
There will always be a limited supply of resources. Perhaps there should be a public approval system for the resources, where the community gets to pick which jobs should get added to the queue based on public analysis of the code and a description of the computation. There will be no shortage of participants ;) On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:37 AM, River Tarnell <ri...@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robert Rohde: >> In particular, I think it is useful to separate "tools" from "analysis". > > why? > >> "Tools" need high availability and low lag relative to the live site, but >> "analysis" doesn't care if it gets out of date and should use scheduling etc. >> to balance large loads. > > what is preventing people from using the current toolserver for this analysis? > what do we need to change about the platform that will enable people to run it > on the current toolserver? > > - river. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (HP-UX) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkm3eD0ACgkQIXd7fCuc5vJeNQCbB3zmpKh2jLmyJDqr6riSXtE5 > 1GMAoLjUPl28JgGFiXMAMKEEF2659DI8 > =R0i8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
