From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090418115903.GA1149@polynum.com> References: <13426df10904171515g571f7781x38ca528cfbce1149@mail.gmail.com> <20090418115903.GA1149@polynum.com> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:05:50 -0700 Message-ID: <13426df10904180805w2889671fjf36c1eb720c45426@mail.gmail.com> From: ron minnich To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years Topicbox-Message-UUID: e5980c20-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 4:59 AM, wrote: > But my gut feeling, after reading about Mach or reading A. Tanenbaum > (that I find poor---but he is A. Tanenbaum, I'm only T. Laronde), > is that a cluster is above the OS (a collection of CPUs), but a > NUMA is for the OS an atom, i.e. is below the OS, a kind of > "processor", a single CPU (so NUMA without a strong hardware specifity > is something I don't understand). A cluster is above the OS because most cluster people don't know how to do OS work. Hence most cluster software follows basic patterns first set in 1991. That is no exaggeration. For cluster work that was done in the OS, see any clustermatic publication from minnich, hendriks, or watson, ca. 2000-2005. ron