On Thu, 13 May 2004 04:33:53 +0900, Ara.T.Howard wrote

> that's too funny -  i was just out running and thinking of 
> __exactly__ this scheme.  actually i've been thinking of it for 
> quite a while; the hang up is that opening ports here is a ***ing 
> nightmare and everytime the sysads upgrade they forget to re-open 
> it.  my goal is to create clustering software that one can have up 
> and running in under five minutes that depends on nothing except for 
> having an NFS mounted directory... we do a lot of processing where

That's one problem that I, thankfully, do not have.  Given that environment, 
though, I see a great deal of appeal in the NFS based approach.

> we pool 10 or 15 nodes together for a few weeks/months and write 
> custom scripts driving ssh commands to 'cluster' them... this 
> actually works really good: right now i've got 36 nodes running jobs 
> that take 5-10 days each.  i've looked (extensively) into SGE (sun

That sounds pretty neat.  In my case, the application will initially be for 
the private use of the client.  In that capacity it won't generate enough 
load to really need any distributed capabilities, but it will generate, via 
a web interface, jobs that will take a few minutes to maybe an hour to run, 
so being able to queue them up for processing is still valuable.

The kicker is that the longer term plans for the project call for it to be 
commercialized.  If that happens there will be a need for distributing the 
jobs over multiple nodes in order to keep the queue from building up faster 
than it can be worked through.  That's really where the value of being able 
to bring up additional consumer processes easily will come into play.

> at it.  one of things i like about my approach is that if one one 
> single node remains running the cluster works, there is no central 
> point of failure (well, the NFS server but all the data resides 
> there so we're dead if it's down anyhow).  do you know if anyone has 
> done anything to make a tuplespace highly available - like having 
> two nodes able to serve the space with some sort of negotiation 
> between the two in the case of failure?  that would be really cool.

I've thought about that.  I haven't delved into it deeply yet, but it seems 
like a very doable task.  Hopefully this project will evolve to the point 
where I can delve into this more.  It'd be great if someone has already done 
this.  In my searches for information on Rinda and TupleSpaces, though, I 
didn't see anything.

> yes - my hands are so cold from my run that i can barely type! 
>  where are you in wy?

Oh, a couple hours or so north of you.  I live outside of the little town of 
Chugwater, Wyoming, north of Cheyenne.


Kirk Haines