On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 02:57, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2004-08-11T11:46:03, > Steven Dake <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > > If we can't live with the cluster services in userland (although I'm > > still not convinced), then atleast the group messaging protocol in the > > kernel could be based upon 20 years of research in group messaging and > > work properly under _all_ fault scenarios. > > Right. Another important alternative maybe the Transis group > communication suite, which has been released as GPL/LGPL now. > > This all just highlights that we need to think about communication some > more before we can tackle it sensibly, but of course I'll be glad if > someone proves me wrong and Just Does It ;-) > agreed... Transis in kernel would be a fine alternative to openais gmi in kernel. Speaking of transis, is the code posted anywhere? I'd like to have a look. Thanks -steve > > Sincerely, > Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
