A kernel level message passing service
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.
Mark Hahn hahn at coffee.psychology.mcmaster.caFri Sep 1 13:09:26 PDT 2000
- Previous message: A kernel level message passing service
- Next message: A kernel level message passing service
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > I have recently become aware of work being done to incorporate certain > > types of services (ex: web servers) into the kernel of unix systems, so the justification offered is that http is just another filesystem, and since we have NFS in the kernel, why not khttpd? but putting hhttpd in the kernel is nothing short of an admission that Linux user-space is not viable in performance. > > Does is make sense that this sort of thing could be applied to a message > > passing interfaces for any sizable gain in performance? If so, is there I don't understand how it could make any sense, outside of loading your whole MPI/PVM system (app and library) into the kernel. there already exist distributed-shared-memory kernel hacks; that's about as close as you could come to a cogent kernel assist for cluster programming. note that this topic is different from VIA-type user-level hardware access. and if you want a low-overhead message passing scheme that's still protected in the conventional sense, why not use good old UDP or even IP datagrams. (I wonder sometimes if the heavy machinery of TCP really makes sense in the context of private, switched networks. does anyone have a count of dropped frames inside a normal cluster?) regards, mark hahn.
- Previous message: A kernel level message passing service
- Next message: A kernel level message passing service
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
