Hi Steven,
(here's the rest of that message)
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 15:50, Steven Dake wrote:
> It would be useful for linux cluster developers for a common low
> level group communication API to be agreed upon by relevant clusters
> projects. Without this approach, we may end up with several systems
> all using different cluster communication & membership mechanisms
> that are incompatible.
To be honest, this does look interesting, however could you help me on a
few points:
- Is there any evil IP we have to worry about with this?
- Can I get a formal interface spec from AIS for this, without
signing a license?
- Have you got benchmarks available for control and normal messaging?
- Have you looked at the barrier subsystem in sources.redhat.com/dlm?
Could this be used as a primitive in implementing Virtual Synchrony?
- Why would we need to worry about the AIS spec, in-kernel? What
would stop you from providing an interface that presented some
kernel functionality to userspace, with the interface of your
choice, presumably AIS?
- Why isn't Virtual Synchrony overkill, since we don't attempt to
deal with netsplits by allowing subclusters to continue to operate?
- In what way would GFS benefit from using Virtual Synchrony in place
of its current messaging algorithms?
Regards,
Daniel
