On 9/6/05, Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 02:55, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:48, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:05, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > do you think it is a bit premature to dismiss something even without > > > > ever seeing the code? > > > > > > You told me you are using a dlm for a single-node application, is there > > > anything more I need to know? > > > > I would still like to know why you consider it a "sin". On OpenVMS it is > > fast, provides a way of cleaning up... > > There is something hard about handling EPIPE? > Just the fact that you want me to handle it ;) > > and does not introduce single point > > of failure as it is the case with a daemon. And if we ever want to spread > > the load between 2 boxes we easily can do it. > > But you said it runs on an aging Alpha, surely you do not intend to expand it > to two aging Alphas? You would be right if I was designing this right now. Now roll 10 - 12 years back and now I have a shiny new alpha. Would you criticize me then for using a mechanism that allowed easily spread application across several nodes with minimal changes if needed? What you fail to realize that there applications that run and will continue to run for a long time. > And what makes you think that socket-based > synchronization keeps you from spreading out the load over multiple boxes? > > > Why would I not want to use it? > > It is not the right tool for the job from what you have told me. You want to > get a few bytes of information from one task to another? Use a socket, as > God intended. > Again, when TCPIP is not a native network stack, when libc socket routines are not readily available - DLM starts looking much more viable. -- Dmitry -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
