From: Jeff Dike <jdike@ka...> - 2002-05-03 22:07:24
> For example when RPM was doing installations, very infrequently it
> would fail to open the database. This is entirely non-repeatable, but
> NEVER happens with -15.
Can you give me whatever information you have about this?
From: Jeff Dike <jdike@ka...> - 2002-05-05 23:05:37
> See http://www.bitmover.com/cc-pitch/ for some more on this idea. I
> think the UML approach would be very cool.
Actually, what I outlined is different from your CC-smp. A lot simpler
and a lot less likely to be practical :-)
http://www.bitmover.com/cc-pitch/ also deserves to be looked at along with
MOSIX and Compaq's SSI project for UML (and physical) clustering.
From: Jeff Dike <jdike@ka...> - 2002-05-07 18:32:32
> Ugh Ugh Ugh.
> Ugh ugh ugh. Too many page faults;
You will note that the only favorable adjective I've used in describing this
scheme is 'easy' :-)
The too many page faults is covered by my 'performance will suck'...
From: Roger Binns <rogerb@ro...> - 2002-05-04 07:05:40
> > For example when RPM was doing installations, very infrequently it
> > would fail to open the database. This is entirely non-repeatable, but
> > NEVER happens with -15.
> Can you give me whatever information you have about this?
I have not been able to get any errors with -22um. Additionally a
problem I used to have long ago whereby rpm would just during some
installations no longer happens (I had originally worked around it
since I didn't know if the bug was in rpm or uml).
The problem I saw twice with -21um was rpm printing a bizarre message
about the package database. It actually looked like a perl expression
(something like foo -> bar with more punctuation). This would be
halfway through 200 packages being installed one at a time. As an
uneducated guess, I would suspect a memory mapping failure.