User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Cluster nodes? Thin clients? blades?

Cluster nodes? Thin clients? blades?

Posted Aug 24, 2006 7:29 UTC (Thu) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071)
Parent article: The return of network block device deadlock prevention

...there have not been streams of bug reports on this topic - and, in most cases, it can be avoided simply by swapping to a local disk.

This fails to consider diskless thin clients, blade systems, and cluster nodes where power use, heat, and noise as well as cost are major factors in the desire to avoid a local disk.

I suspect the bug reports haven't been coming because "everybody knows linux can't swap reliably over nfs or nbd" - or is told so as soon as they do any research on the matter. That rather reduces the test base, and reports will be further reduced by the expectation that problem reports will be dismissed with a comment along the lines of "why are you doing that, it's unreliable and can deadlock." .

Whether the statement about reliability in the previous paragraph is actually true, and whether the issues really arise very much, is a good question. I don't think there's any easy way to tell the difference between a feature everybody is told is unreliable and so avoids, and one that's used by a significant number of people without many issues despite theoretical problems.

I personally use LTSP thin clients that swap over NFS. The latest LTSP has moved to swap-over-nbd, so I'll be finding out first hand soon. Experience with LTSP suggests that swap over NFS, at least, is not something you want to rely on for more than the most casual use, as it DOES deadlock.

The set of systems whose owners can afford fancy network storage arrays, but where those same owners are unable to invest in a local disk for swapping, is thought to be small.

This might be true - but there are several types of systems that have this need, as noted above, and the reasons for avoiding local disks certainly aren't limited to cost. I'd argue that the number of people with >16 CPU machines is pretty small too, but the scheduler certainly gets a disproportionate amount of attention and added complexity for this small group.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds