1 |
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:05:37 -0400 |
2 |
Ted Rodgers <trodgers@××××××.edu> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Afaik, xen tools are only for virtual hosts, which wouldn't help us |
5 |
> much. Our lab machines get hit pretty hard by matlab users, so it's |
6 |
> not something that would virtualize well. The current setup isn't |
7 |
> really clustered at all, it's a rack and lab setup sharing home |
8 |
> directories and automounts using NIS. I liked the idea of letting |
9 |
> something like openmosix doing workload balancing between machines |
10 |
> without having to write wrapper scripts around the jobs. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The ideal setup would have one machine were students/researchers log |
13 |
> into, fire up the process, then have a management tool that |
14 |
> determines where it runs. Users logging into random machines to run |
15 |
> their jobs means sometimes 5 machines are idle while another machine |
16 |
> is heavily loaded. A central login point would also allow us to |
17 |
> restrict direct access to all the other machines. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Ted |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> José Costa wrote: |
26 |
> > Well, have you tried with Linux-HA using Xen OCF Resource Agent? |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > On 5/24/07, Ted Rodgers <trodgers@××××××.edu> wrote: |
29 |
> >> Joshua Morris wrote: |
30 |
> >> > What other alternatives are there? Can anyone share their |
31 |
> >> installation |
32 |
> >> > tips and help some of us that are new to clustering but familiar |
33 |
> >> > with Gentoo. I am looking to build something when I can run |
34 |
> >> > multiple |
35 |
> >> vm's on |
36 |
> >> > a cluster and load balance the vm's across the cluster. Anyone |
37 |
> >> > doing anything similar to this? |
38 |
> >> > |
39 |
> >> > Thank you, |
40 |
> >> > Joshua |
41 |
> >> > |
42 |
> >> We've been asking the same question where I work. We're wanting to |
43 |
> >> re-do and increase performance in a few lab setups and thought |
44 |
> >> openmosix would be a great option. If there aren't tools |
45 |
> >> available for a 2.6 kernel, we may have to keep using the current |
46 |
> >> setup: NIS / NFS / autofs / afs setup with users loging in to |
47 |
> >> specific machines. One group tried condor, but really isn't happy |
48 |
> >> with it at all. |
49 |
> >> |
50 |
> >> Any suggestions? |
51 |
> >> |
52 |
> >> Ted Rodgers |
53 |
> >> Robotics, CMU |
54 |
> >> -- |
55 |
> >> gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |
56 |
> >> |
57 |
> >> |
58 |
> |
59 |
Couldn't you implement a rudimentary load-balancing system with |
60 |
multiple cname entries in dns? |
61 |
-- |
62 |
gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |