[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: Why GNU Mach is so different? |
Date: |
05 Jan 2002 11:51:47 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 |
Farid Hajji <farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net> writes:
> > technical features you need, there is, for example, the requirement to have
> > a network-wide unique process id for a task. Thomas calls such a network
> > of Hurd systems a "collective". I guess if you want to do distributed
> > systems in a Hurdish way, collectives are the way to go. The concept exists
> > only in Thomas head, though, so you will have to nag him a bit to tell us
> > about his ideas.
> Network-wide unique identifiers like task-IDs, ports, etc... are a nice
> thing to have. One idea may be to organize all nodes of a collective
> in a distributed kind of (hurdisch) filesystem. IDs would then be
> simple paths and could be located with some kind of distributed
> lookup() functionality:
It was always my plan to have a single IP address for a collective.
(The collective might use IP for communication between its component
systems, but those addresses would be entirely internal.)
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/05
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/05
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/05
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/05
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/06
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/01/06
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/07
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/01/07
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Eray Ozkural (exa), 2002/01/09
- Re: Why GNU Mach is so different?, Farid Hajji, 2002/01/23