Fedora cluster project? (was Re: [Beowulf] Opteron/Athlon Clustering)

Mitchell Skinner mitchskin at comcast.net
Wed Jun 9 08:36:47 EDT 2004

On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 15:00, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> <rant> Ah, but you see, this is a religious issue for me for reasons of
> long-term scalability and maintainability, so I don't even think of this
> alternative.  Or if you like, I think it costs money in the short run,
> and costs even more money in the long run, compared to participating in
> Fedora or CaOSity and doing it once THERE, where everybody can share it.
> But you knew that...;-)

I've been kicking around the idea of starting a fedora-oriented cluster

***Advantages of Fedora vs:

RHEL rebuilds (Rocks, cAos)
*  Don't need to do release engineering for the base distribution (cf.
Rocks 3.1.0 bug where i686 kernels were installed on athlon machines)
*  More up to date

*  More stable than unstable, less archaic than stable

*  freely available update stream

***My goals for it would be:
Social/political goals:
1. Ease of installation ("yum install cluster-master")
2. piggyback on other work (Fedora release engineering, mobs of people
trying it out on commodity hardware)
3. Encourage outside contributions (have a completely open devel
process, use a license without an advertising clause)
4. Be an integration point for applications ("yum install mpiblast")
5. Feed back upstream (to fedora and/or directly to maintainers)

Technical goals/hopes:
1. Organize as a set of add-on packages, rather than a whole
distribution (like OSCAR, but without the extra complexity of multiple
base distributions).  This means creating SRPMs that can be fed upstream
(unlike rocks-sge, for example).
2. Use RPM/anaconda to select architecture-specific files, like Rocks
(handles heterogenous clusters more cleanly than systemimager (OSCAR) or
network booting (warewulf))

***Potential Objections:
1.  "Fedora changes too frequently" - This is problematic in proportion
to the pain of change.  One reason that change is painful is that people
put it off, and then have to make a huge change all at once.  More
frequent, more incremental changes can work, especially if you have the
source to your apps.  This is assuming that the still-somewhat-untested
fedora-legacy project doesn't work out; if it does then this objection
is moot.  OTOH, if you want your closed-source ISV apps to be certified
for your setup, then maybe this approach is not for you.

What do people think?


Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

More information about the Beowulf mailing list