| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future...Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future...Posted Oct 21, 2005 6:26 UTC (Fri) by joib (guest, #8541)In reply to: Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future... by emkey Parent article: Ballmer: Microsoft to go after Linux strongholds (ZDNet)
AFAIK the Cray XD1 Linux/Opteron "turnkey cluster" does contain some changes to the scheduler to ensure that parallel processes execute in lockstep. Or actually, it's implemented the other way around, i.e. the non-parallel housekeeping processes get to run at only a few specified time slots. See page 8 on http://www.cray.com/downloads/dhbrown_crayxd1_oct2004.pdf .
(Log in to post comments)
Frankly I Don't See Either Side As the Future... Posted Oct 21, 2005 14:29 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] That solution just tends to point out the fundamental flaws in using a complex OS to run highly parallel jobs in my opinion.
There is a real tendancy for clever people to want to solve problems. This isn't always a good thing in that we often come up with "bag on the side" solutions to deal with issues that are really a result of having what is in context a poor design.
I always try to take a step back in these situations and look at the big picture. Often times things appear in a whole new light when I do so and more productive paths forward present themselves.
|
|
||||||||||||