From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <3e1162e60904190826w1ff0d7e5ua5456981be9719cc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:58:57 +0200 Message-ID: <5d375e920904200758m1a1a96den579673e107b57b19@mail.gmail.com> From: Uriel To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years Topicbox-Message-UUID: ea59e08a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:14 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote: > ericvh stated it better in the "FAWN" thread. =C2=A0choosing the abstract= ion > that makes the resulting environments have required attributes > (reliable, consistent, easy, etc.) will be the trick. =C2=A0i believe wit= h > the current state of the Internet -- e.g. =C2=A0lack of speed and securit= y > -- service abstraction is the right level of distributedness. > presenting the services as file hierarchy makes sense; 9p is efficient 9p is efficient as long as your latency is <30ms uriel > and so the plan9 approach still feels like the right path to cloud > computing. > >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wr= ote: >> >>> > Well, in the octopus you have a fixed part, the pc, but all other >>> > machines come and go. The feeling is very much that your stuff is in >>> > the cloud. >>> >>> i was going to mention this. =C2=A0to me the current view of cloud >>> computing as evidence by papers like this[1] are basically hardware >>> infrastructure capable of running vm pools each of which would do >>> exactly what a dedicated server would do. =C2=A0the main benefits being= low >>> administration cost and elasticity. =C2=A0networking, authentication an= d >>> authorization remain as they are now. =C2=A0they are still not addressi= ng >>> what octopus and rangboom are trying to address: how to seamlessly and >>> automatically make resources accessible. =C2=A0if you read what ken sai= d it >>> appears to be this view of cloud computing; he said "some framework to >>> allow many loosely-coupled Plan9 systems to emulate a single system >>> that would be larger and more reliable". =C2=A0in all virtualization >>> systems i've seen the vm has to be smaller than the environment it >>> runs on. =C2=A0if vmware or xen were ever to give you a vm that was lar= ger >>> than any given real machine it ran on, they'd have to solve the same >>> problem. >> >> >> I'm not sure a single system image is any better in the long run than >> Distributed Shared Memory. =C2=A0Both have issues of locality, where the >> abstraction that gives you the view of a single machine hurts your abili= ty >> to account for the lack of locality. >> >> In other words, I think applications should show a single system image b= ut >> maybe not programming models. =C2=A0I'm not 100% sure what I mean by tha= t >> actually, but it's sort of an intuitive feeling. >> >> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-28.pdf >>> >>> >>> > > >