gomd-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gomd-devel] Some excerpts from Matt<->JP IRC chat session


From: Matthias Rechenburg
Subject: Re: [gomd-devel] Some excerpts from Matt<->JP IRC chat session
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:55:53 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

Ciao Mirko,

On Dienstag 20 Mai 2003 23:33, Mirko Caserta wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:57:28 +0200
>
> "Gian Paolo Ghilardi" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > MATT: specially the libgomd connection is really serious
> > JP: did you see bugs_history file?
> > ...snip...
>
> First of all I'm sorry I couldn't join the channel tonite but freenode has
> a ban line on my provider's IP addresses so I couldn't connect, no way :/

oh, sorry about that. 

>
> Btw, didn't we say that gomd2gomd messages should be exchanged via UDP
> messages? UDP doesn't need any connection at all. I don't think we can

mhmm, yes, mainly ;)

> simply reuse the TCP interface for this. I mean, if we can, let's do it...

i think we can and we should for now.
Maybe later we can switch to UDP and re-use the datagram but for now
we should use the same "client-request" mechanism for the gomd2gomd
(to my mind)
We have a great parser for our current reqeusts already so let us use it.
Also it will make "things" a lot easier for the later libgomd as mentioned.
We will just move the gomd2gomd methods to the libgomd, use it in
the gomd and link the gomd against the libgomd (as the first and best
example how to use it ;)
.... again just my thoughts. If JP say that it easy to implement in UDP
then let us go with that.

....... i did not expect so much traffic on gomd tcp connections. We will have
to test it later in bigger clusters how much overhead it causes. Maybe then
there is really a good reason to switch to UDP for the gomd2gomd methods.

> we wouldn't have any need for a separate datagram driven message exchange
> protocol and this would also mean we reuse the TCP interface code and
> reduce the "time to market" ;) as well as JP's hard work.

yep, agree !

>
> I don't know. I'm just thinking about it. I think Gian Paolo understands
> the thing much better than me in terms of "pure code" so I'd ask you: is it
> more convenient to reuse the TCP interface for gomd2gomd communication or
> implement the UDP thing?

agree again, JP's opinion will make the decision ;)

>
> In the meanwhile I'm rebuilding the kernel's rpms and I guess this time
> they're the good ones ;)

great ! i read from it in the other mail you wrote.

>
> More news later when I post the rpms to my "super-secret" site ;)

hehehe, Mirko's openMosix-home

Wish a great day for you all !

>
> Ciao, Mirko.
<snip>

Ciao ragazzi,

Matt
-- 
E-mail  :  address@hidden
www     : http://www.openmosixview.com
an openMosix-cluster management GUI

Don't blame Linux or Oracle btw - Just look at the thing sitting 30cm from
the screen ;-) ha ha!





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]