4 ms·
There were older attempts at this stuff, in the 90s with "Beowulf" clusters that had cross-machine process management and whatnot. It's a lot harder than it se
by ff317 5y ago
There were older attempts at this stuff, in the 90s with "Beowulf" clusters that had cross-machine process management and whatnot. It's a lot harder than it seems to make this approach make sense in the real world, as the abstraction hides important operational details. The explicit container + orchestration abstraction is probably closer to the ideal than trying to stretch linux/systemd/cgroups across the network "seamlessly". It's clearer what's going on and what the operational trade-offs are.
- mnd999 5y agoImagine a Beowulf cluster of hot grits in soviet Russia with CowboyNeal.
- gnufx 5y ago> in the 90s with "Beowulf" clusters In case of any confusion, that sort of thing wasn't a generic Beowulf feature, but it sounds like Bproc. I don't know if it's still used. (The Sourceforge version is ancient.) https://updates.penguincomputing.com/clusterware/6/docs/clusterware-docs/prog-guide/bproc.html https://updates.penguincomputing.com/clusterware/6/docs/clus... https://sourceforge.net/projects/bproc/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/bproc/ Containers actually only make it harder to "orchestrate" your distributed processes in an HPC system.