bproc-users

[BProc] Kernel: compile network devices as modules?

[jeremy a. <arc...@co...>]

The question:  Do network devices need to be compiled as modules? 

I have them compiled into the kernel, hence almost using nothing from
/etc/beowulf/config.boot except for the long pci list.

Does anyone else have their network devices compiled into the kernel rather than
as modules?


The reason I ask is because I have now gotten to here:

rebooting in 2 secs


but then....


Unexpected IRQ trap at vector 11
Unexpected IRQ trap at vector 11
Unexpected IRQ trap at vector 11
Unexpected IRQ trap at vector 11
...


lspci shows:
00:11.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905


almost there...
-j

Re: [BProc] Kernel: compile network devices as modules?

[Joshua A. <lu...@li...>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:35:53AM +0100, jeremy archuleta wrote:
> The question:  Do network devices need to be compiled as modules? 

For phase1 it is typically a good idea for phase1.  This allows the
modules to be unloaded and some hardware shutdown to happen before the
new kernel takes over.

For phase2 it helps because it keeps the kernel size small.  In the past
I have run into a bug if the phase2 kernel image is too big.

> almost there...

It's well worth the pain after get there.  I have found that a bproc
cluster is soo much easier to build and maintain than a traditional
cluster.

Josh

--
Joshua Aune
http://www.linuxnetworx.com

Re: [BProc] Kernel: compile network devices as modules?

[Jeremy A. <arc...@co...>]

I understand about the advantages of kernel modules, but my question 
really is: "Do the network devices HAVE to be compiled as modules?"

For right now I have two computers with identical configurations. One 
is running the kernel that I compiled and has bproc running. The second 
computer is giving problems with the IRQ trap. To decrease the size of 
the kernel, I removed sound, usb, power management, and some other 
devices. Since the kernel is running on the first computer, I assume 
(my last words) that it will run on the second computer.

If anyone has successfully got bproc/beoboot working where the network 
devices are compiled into the kernel, I would be greatful if you just 
said so, so that I know that the problem lies elsewhere. None-the-less, 
tomorrow I will be recompiling the kernel (again) but this time with 
the devices loaded as modules.

Thanks for all your help thus far. The eventual cluster will have 240 
cpus in a single rack, and the single system image and netbooting will 
be very (understatement) handy. If the blades support PXE, I will try 
that too.

Thanks again.
-J
p.s. If you work at LANL, send me an email, because I am sure I could 
use some pointers on this.


On Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003, at 17:15 US/Pacific, Joshua Aune wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:35:53AM +0100, jeremy archuleta wrote:
>> The question:  Do network devices need to be compiled as modules?
>
> For phase1 it is typically a good idea for phase1.  This allows the
> modules to be unloaded and some hardware shutdown to happen before the
> new kernel takes over.
>
> For phase2 it helps because it keeps the kernel size small.  In the 
> past
> I have run into a bug if the phase2 kernel image is too big.
>
>> almost there...
>
> It's well worth the pain after get there.  I have found that a bproc
> cluster is soo much easier to build and maintain than a traditional
> cluster.
>
> Josh
>
> --
> Joshua Aune
> http://www.linuxnetworx.com
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> BProc-users mailing list
> BPr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bproc-users
>