[cgl_discussion] Re: [dcl_discussion] ANNOUNCE: OSDL Clusters (foundational components)

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Wed Nov 26 14:51:34 PST 2003


On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 14:22, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
(...)
> I must have missed this evaluation and apologize. I would be very
> interested in learning more about it; could you please point me to it?

As a member of an OSDL sponsor company, you are able to subscribe to our
internal mailing list, cgl_specs, and read the archives there. Please
go to: http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_specs to subscribe.

While doing that, would you sign up to cgl_discussion, so that I do
not have to approve your post there too ;-) (cgl_discussion is
subscriber only because of spam)?

> This would certainly be an interesting comparison and help me
> immensely. How are Linux HA, OpenSSI, Trans-Is etc unfixable
> insufficient?

Please read the mail archives and rest of the material (like our
spec) available to you, and then ask that question on cgl_specs if
needed. For some understandable but unfortunate reasons most of CGL
people are way more talkative on cgl_specs than in the openness of
cgl_discussion. Sad but true.

> I think that SAF AIS (even though I have some minor issues with their
> APIs, but when is an engineer ever happy ;) is a great step forward
> overall, if the process behind it wasn't so closed. All my efforts to
> get involved have not been very successful, we didn't manage to get SAF
> more interested.

Actually, we asked OCF to participate in a meeting between CGL and 
SAForum in Plano, TX couple weeks back but AFAIK it was declined. But
as indicated, CGL-WG has a good working relationship with SAForum.

> > In case of cluster communication (aka TIPC), we are definititely not
> > starting from scratch. It has been the opinion here, that building the
> > other two services on top of TIPC should be doable with reasonable work
> > amount.
> 
> I somehow managed to miss that too. I really should subscribe to the
> OSDL cluster list, it appears.

Well, we have been keeping low profile for several reasons on it, but
there are couple presentations I can point to from our last F2F:
	http://www.osdl.org/docs/cgl_f2f_presentation_tipc.pdf
	http://www.osdl.org/docs/cgl_f2f_presentation_osdl_tipc.pdf
Also there are the project web pages:
	http://tipc.sourceforge.net
	http://developer.osdl.org/dev/tipc/OSDL_tipc.html
The code is available from:
	http://sourceforge.net/projects/tipc/
	bk clone bk://developer.osdl.org:tipc/stable
	(I can provide diffs in tarball if you have issues with BK)

> Vendors have a reasonably strict "Mainline first" policy for 2.6. How's
> the chances of getting it into the kernel proper there? I'm not asking
> tongue-in-cheek, I'm truely curious, because so far our assessment has
> been that it seemed to work well enough outside the kernel and was also
> much simpler to maintain.

Right now we are aiming at the next development branch, as we have
clearly missed the train with 2.6. OTH, TIPC is actually very
non-invasive to the kernel (see my presentation above), so I think
technically there are no big issues. In process wise, the way of TIPC
and rest of the code to get into mainline will go trough people starting
to use it, which in practice mean that the customers of distribution
companies will start asking for distros to ship with it.

Getting TIPC mainlined is going to be a long term project (i.e. in next
kernel development cycle), but that is the way it works.

> I can only speak for SUSE, as well as the OCF project (slow as it may
> be) and Linux HA, but I've not seen even a brief and short discussion
> about this out in the open; the first I've read was the announcement
> here, which did create the impression for me that OSDL is not actively
> contributing to the Open Source community, but rolling their own. Yes,
> reinventing wheels if one of the project fails is one of the strengths,
> but as you say, only after some consideration of the other options; I
> cannot say that I believe that one can have considered other options
> without having discussed them with the respective projects.

You mean like listening to the presentations like this:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/cgl_f2f_presentation_linux_ha_membership_service.pdf
? ;-)

Trust me, we have done our homework on this; OSDL even had one person
working actively in OCF half year ago as you very well know.

> I understand and actively appreciate the idea of pushing the community
> towards some common goal. Trust me that I'm actively hurt quite a bit by
> all those different projects, and in particular the infrastructure
> levels like membership et al hurt the most. But, it would be good if it
> looked and felt somewhat more like the community was involved, and not a
> closed OSDL project ;-)

What do you mean by "closed"? We are no more closed than any other Open
Source project out there. I am more than willing to take patches to
TIPC, and all help in testing the bloody thing is needed. What more I/we
have to do to qualify as "open"?

The only reason John's announcement did not go to LKML is because of
Thanksgiving, we did not want to send an email to LKML and then 
disappear for four days (yes, I actually want to have some time left for
my family after TIPC, OSDL & CGL have taken their share ...).

> Well, then, Intel has just contributed a patch for heartbeat to provide
> the SAF AIS membership API. ;-)

Yes, we saw that, and think it is a step to the right direction.

--MiKu





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list