[Linux-cluster] Re: [cgl_discussion] Re: [dcl_discussion]
lmb at suse.de
Thu Aug 12 02:57:36 PDT 2004
Steven Dake <sdake at mvista.com> said:
> If we can't live with the cluster services in userland (although I'm
> still not convinced), then atleast the group messaging protocol in the
> kernel could be based upon 20 years of research in group messaging and
> work properly under _all_ fault scenarios.
Right. Another important alternative maybe the Transis group
communication suite, which has been released as GPL/LGPL now.
This all just highlights that we need to think about communication some
more before we can tackle it sensibly, but of course I'll be glad if
someone proves me wrong and Just Does It ;-)
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>
High Availability & Clustering \ I allow neither my experience
SUSE Labs, Research and Development | nor my cynicism to deter my
SUSE LINUX AG - A Novell company \ optimistic outlook on life.
More information about the cgl_discussion