diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'unsorted/hurd-migr')
| -rw-r--r-- | unsorted/hurd-migr | 141 |
1 files changed, 141 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/unsorted/hurd-migr b/unsorted/hurd-migr new file mode 100644 index 00000000..ce36c86c --- /dev/null +++ b/unsorted/hurd-migr @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +Path: usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!E +U.net!Germany.EU.net!netmbx.de!sietec.de!news!jh +From: jh@poseidon.sietec.de (Jochen Roger Hayek) +Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss +Subject: HURD & migration facilities +Date: 24 Oct 1994 15:12:34 GMT +Organization: Sietec Systemtechnik, Berlin +Lines: 16 +Distribution: world +Message-ID: <JH.94Oct24161234@poseidon.sietec.de> +Reply-To: Jochen.Roger.Hayek@sietec.de +NNTP-Posting-Host: sunmiet3.sietec.de + +I read an article from acm's sigops vol. 28, number 4 this weekend, having the +title: + + a brief survey of systems providing + process or object migration facilities + by Mark Nuttall + +I found it very instructive. + +I think process / object migration should be considered for HURD, too, +and it's important to look at that before supporting / emulating +UNIX's fork and inherited open file descriptors, +because those features might get contradictory if not carefully designed. + +Regards esp. to the HURD folks + +JH + +Path: usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.ed +u!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mib +From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) +Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss +Subject: Re: HURD & migration facilities +Date: 24 Oct 1994 18:10:25 GMT +Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA +Lines: 27 +Distribution: world +Message-ID: <MIB.94Oct24141025@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> +References: <JH.94Oct24161234@poseidon.sietec.de> +NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu +In-reply-to: jh@poseidon.sietec.de's message of 24 Oct 1994 15:12:34 + GMT + +In article <JH.94Oct24161234@poseidon.sietec.de> jh@poseidon.sietec.de (Jochen +Roger Hayek) writes: + + I think process / object migration should be considered for HURD, too, + and it's important to look at that before supporting / emulating + UNIX's fork and inherited open file descriptors, + because those features might get contradictory if not carefully designed. + +Process migration is not a problem for the Hurd--it's a problem for +Mach. If a Mach task can be correctly migrated, then there is no +problem. + +However, I want to do more than that with the Hurd; I want to have a +collection of machines (I think I'll call it a ``Collective'') appear +as a single machine. (Shades of amoeba here.) + +This is the first (and harder) task--making a single global space of +pids, etc. + +The second (and easier) task is migration. + + -mib +-- ++1 617 623 3248 (H) | En arche en ho logos, ++1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- kai ho logos en pros ton theon, +1105 Broadway | kai theos en ho logos. +Somerville, MA 02144 | Kai ho logos sarx egeneto, +mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu | kai eskenosen en hemin. + +Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss +Path: usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!agora!hermes. +rdrop.com!erich +From: erich@uruk.org (Erich Boleyn) +Subject: Re: HURD & migration facilities +Sender: news@agora.rdrop.com (David Greenman) +Nntp-Posting-Host: uruk.org +Organization: RainDrop Laboratories +Message-ID: <ERICH.94Oct29093537@uruk.org> +References: <JH.94Oct24161234@poseidon.sietec.de> + <MIB.94Oct24141025@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> +In-Reply-To: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu's message of 24 Oct 1994 18:10:25 GMT +Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:35:37 GMT +Lines: 50 + + +In article <MIB.94Oct24141025@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.ed +u (Michael I Bushnell) writes: + + Process migration is not a problem for the Hurd--it's a problem for + Mach. If a Mach task can be correctly migrated, then there is no + problem. + + However, I want to do more than that with the Hurd; I want to have a + collection of machines (I think I'll call it a ``Collective'') appear + as a single machine. (Shades of amoeba here.) + +Great! (I think we talked about this before...) + + This is the first (and harder) task--making a single global space of + pids, etc. + +This point seems somewhat questionable. Maybe we're thinking about +the same idea in the long run, but I don't think that migrating +data about the whole system around would be very useful... +I mean, you still want a very large collective to work, though it +could well get bogged down by the details of huge amounts of info. + +I think a more optimal (and more practical) approach would be to: + +Create a model of a "user context" that keeps track across multiple +machines what resources and programs a user is working with. + +There would also be publically known "services" that would be advertised. +Note that "advertising" is a specific activity that is usually not +performed, unless one desires to do so. + +Anything else is really of little or no concern except to a local group of +machines (for resource-balancing issues). So machines would automatically +keep in touch with other nearby machines, but it would be modulated by +distance. + +The big question is this (and for that matter, other models) is that +of authentication in some kind of reasonably reliable manner. + + The second (and easier) task is migration. + +Agreed. + +Erich + +-- +Erich Stefan Boleyn \ Mad Genius wanna-be, CyberMuffin +Mathematician, Software Engineer \ slavering computer nerd +Internet E-mail: <erich@uruk.org> \ "Forget Artificial Intelligence, +Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying" \ I want the real thing!" |