On Friday 29 October 2004 23:09, Brian J. Watson wrote: > Friggin' beautiful!! Your utility looks like a nice enhancement to > OpenSSI clustering! Thanks a lot. > One suggestion I have is to not separate the nodes into master and > slaves. A master/slave architecture implies that the master is a single > point of failure, which is not true in OpenSSI. It's better to call it > the "init node". I see you use this term in one of your detail views. I understand and agree with this. However, from my user point of view, the initnode still appears as a single point of failure, since if it crashes, all the cluster collapses. Even with redundant root filesystem (DRBD or shared SCSI), loosing init nodes will bring the whole cluster down. So, in my understanding, and from a user point of view, init nodes have a special status in the cluster, which seems to be incompatible with a full peer-to-peer architecture. Contrary to openMosix, eg., or to an ideal peer-to-peer cluster, an openSSI cluster could not survive without its init nodes. > Another problem with the master/slave connotation is that OpenSSI is a > very peer-to-peer architecture. > One last problem is that master/slave could imply that only the master > node has a terminal, as in a Beowulf cluster. I agree with this, that's why I'll change the (master nodes / slave nodes) denomination to something like (init nodes / nodes). Or would you prefer no distinction at all between nodes? Best regards, -- Kilian CAVALOTTI Ingénieur Systèmes & Réseaux Laboratoire STIX École Polytechnique F91128 Palaiseau Tel : +33 1 69 33 41 13 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&opÌk _______________________________________________ ssic-linux-devel mailing list ssic-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel