[Beowulf] Interesting google server design
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Lux, James P james.p.lux at jpl.nasa.govSat Apr 4 08:00:54 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Interesting google server design
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: Interesting google server design
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 4/2/09 3:41 AM, "Robert G. Brown" <rgb at phy.duke.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Ellis Wilson wrote: > > Because there is zero penalty to node failure other than this fifteen > minutes of human time and maybe a spare part distributed along an > assembly line that handles (I'm guessing) tens of failures an hour, > there is absolutely no advantage to them in using tier 1 parts. All > they care about is that the stack of parts they reach for is at the > sweet spot of MTBF per dollar spent per unit of "service" delivered by > the device. All beowulfers should take note -- this is a perfect > exemplar of a principle all cluster builders should use, > > > > although of > course for different problems the optimization landscape will differ as > well (some problems are NOT tolerant of single node failure:-). Is this not one of the big challenges in writing/designing good parallelized applications? If you're so tightly coupled that a hiccup anywhere throws of the timing, what you've built is basically a systolic array or a flavor of SIMD, and you've put yourself in a category of "brittleness" I mean, if there's a bug in the underlying rgbbot code, then if /dev/rgbbot0 dies, so does /dev/rgbbot1, etc.
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Interesting google server design
- Next message: [Beowulf] Re: Interesting google server design
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
