[Linux-cluster] RE: [Clusters_sig] Planning a Cluster meeting at OLS

[Walker, Bruce J]

Daniel,
There is a single BoF slot of perhaps 1.5 hours.  The difference is
12-16 hours vs. 1.5.  The way I see it we will continue the work done at
the Germany summit at the pre-OLS meeting. At the BoF we will just have
time to report on what has been discussed/agreed/proposed in the summit
and pre-OLS meetings. 

bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Phillips [mailto:phillips at redhat.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:01 PM
To: clusters_sig at lists.osdl.org
Cc: James Bottomley; Walker, Bruce J; linux-cluster at redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Clusters_sig] Planning a Cluster meeting at OLS

On Monday 09 May 2005 11:21, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 06:04 -0700, Walker, Bruce J wrote:
> > I am trying to gauge interest in a cluster meeting at OLS (before 
> > OLS starts).  Topics would include, but not be limited to:
> >    membership, fencing, apis, (kernel and non-kernel)
> >    DLM
> >    cluster filesystems (hooks, DLMs, recovery, membership, etc.)
> >    common hooks for clusterwide process management
> >       - openssi, openmosix, bproc, kerrighed, cassat, ...
> > Goal would be to make progress toward common infrastructure or 
> > common infrastructure interfaces that various groups could work 
> > with.

Now the obvious question: what is the difference between a BOF and a
cluster workshop at OLS?  The former is a greatly expanded version of
the latter?  Why not just expand the OLS BOF into two or more sessions?

(Currently it is already two, as the session lead by me and the SSI
session lead by Bruce haven't actually been merged yet, as far as I
know.)

I do see logistical issues.  A venue would have to be arranged, which
takes money.  Has anybody stepped up?

> I have two topics that seem to me to be important for this:
>
> 1. Since almost every one of those clusters has pieces in the kernel 
> and pieces in userland, getting information across the kernel/user 
> boundary in a uniform fashion for all of them seems to be crucial.
> At the moment, it looks like the OCFS usysfs mechanism is really the 
> only candidate, but that's still encountering turbulence from Al Viro.

> Perhaps agreeing on a common such mechanism and how it should be 
> implemented would be useful

For that, I use a message transport similar to dbus, with great success.

> 2. I'd like to see a readout from the Red Hat Walldorf cluster event 
> added to the agenda (assuming such an event takes place, that is).

Such an event is taking place.  An official announcement should be
possible in a few days.  Unofficial details have already been circulated
informally.

Regards,

Daniel