* Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Now, the interesting bit here is that the processes can grow to be
> > pretty large (200M+, up as high as 500M, higher if we let it ;) ) and what
> > happens with MOSIX is that entire processes get sent over the wire to
> > other machines for work. MOSIX will also attempt to rebalance the load on
> > all of the machines in the cluster and whatnot so it can often be moving
> > processes back and forth.
> then you'll love the zerocopy patch :-) Just use sendfile() or specify
> MSG_NOCOPY to sendmsg(), and you'll see effective memory-to-card
> DMA-and-checksumming on cards that support it.
Excellent, this patch certainly sounds interesting which is why
I've been following this discussion. Once the MOSIX patch for 2.4 comes
out I think I'm going to tinker with this and see if I can get MOSIX to
use these methods.
> the discussion with Stephen is about various device-to-device schemes.
> (which Mosix i dont think wants to use. Mosix wants to use memory to
> device zero-copy, right?)
Yes, very much so actually now that I think about it. Alot of
memory->device and device->memory work going on. I was mainly replying
to the idea of clustering since that's what MOSIX is all about.
Description: PGP signature