|
|
| Author |
Message |
twenex
|
|
The Unix Hardware Item
| 
Sep 16 23:25 UTC 2006 |
This item is reserved for discussion of Unix hardware - that is, hardware
created specifically for the purpose of running a Unix operating system. The
PDP-11, Interdata 7/32 and 8/32, and DEC VAX have an honorary place in this
item as, although not specifically created to run Unix, they were nevertheless
the first four hardware platforms to run it.
|
| 27 responses total. |
maus
|
|
response 1 of 27:
|
Sep 19 04:43 UTC 2006 |
On a somewhat newer topic than the original UNIX hardware, has anyone
dealt with adding additional processor boards to a cPCI-based system?
I just want to confirm what I think I understand from the assorted
literature out in the Internet. In a cPCI system, the additional system
boards (satelite boards or slave boards) add additional compute
resources but are still a part of the same "system"; that is, they
share the same state, same operating environment kernel image and IP
number. Is this correct? If the main system board fails, will the
system stay up and limp along on the slave board or is the presence
tied to the primary system board?
|
cross
|
|
response 2 of 27:
|
Sep 20 04:12 UTC 2006 |
I think it depends highly on the operating system running on the system. Some
versions are going to be resistant to things like failures of other system
boards on the bus, others are going to want to run on some "master" and aren't
going to take kindly to it going away suddenly. Which is which varies.
|
maus
|
|
response 3 of 27:
|
Sep 20 04:17 UTC 2006 |
So I would probably want to run Solaris, QNX or a port of Carrier-Grade
Linux, rather than a BSD?
|
cross
|
|
response 4 of 27:
|
Sep 20 04:24 UTC 2006 |
I guess it depends on what you want to do with it? If you need high
availability, I'd go with QNX which has a proven track record in this area.
But it's really impossible to say without knowing more about your specific
application....
|
maus
|
|
response 5 of 27:
|
Sep 28 04:26 UTC 2006 |
I was looking at running OBSD and using sysjail or Solaris and zones to
provide lightweight Virtual Private Environments to allow colleagues an
opportunity to play as root in OBSD or Solaris without giving away the
server, and also to allow them to try out non-intel gear (most are used
to either Linux or Windows on intel, with a few FBSD partisans). The
other thing I wanted to do is demonstrate that uptimes of over a couple
of months are a reasonable thing to look at. I figured that with either
a resilient BSD or UNIX and resilient, redundant, hot-swapable hardware,
with all users being kept in a jail environment, this puppy could do the
whole uptime-for-uptime's-sake thing.
|
cross
|
|
response 6 of 27:
|
Sep 28 05:23 UTC 2006 |
Oh, hmm. Solaris might be able to handle that; I doubt that OpenBSD has the
support for hot-swappability of, e.g., CPU cards.
|
maus
|
|
response 7 of 27:
|
Sep 28 14:08 UTC 2006 |
You're probably right, now that I think about it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 8 of 27:
|
Sep 28 15:52 UTC 2006 |
More to the point, I doubt Intel hardware has support for hot-swappable CPUs.
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 27:
|
Sep 28 16:02 UTC 2006 |
Some does, but certainly the commodity stuff isn't likely to.
|
maus
|
|
response 10 of 27:
|
Sep 28 21:29 UTC 2006 |
Which is the reason I am not doing this on commodity intel hardware. The
system is a 3 slot cPCI chassis from marathon with a 440MHz Sun CP1500
board (UltraSparc IIe processor, half gig of RAM in a Mezanine board,
hme and scsi built in, serial console), along with redundant,
hot-swapable power supplies and redundant, hot-swappable scsi drives. I
would like to use a CP2060 or CP2080 to add resources. If this works
well, I have a couple of identical systems which I will put up in the
NOC as a test-bed for some of my guys.
|
tod
|
|
response 11 of 27:
|
Sep 28 21:32 UTC 2006 |
Awesome
|
twenex
|
|
response 12 of 27:
|
Sep 28 21:37 UTC 2006 |
Re: #10. Oh right, lost track, sorry.
|
ball
|
|
response 13 of 27:
|
Sep 28 22:23 UTC 2006 |
Re #10: Damn shiny. Hot swap CPUs are a good thing (I've
used them on VME) but I don't know of an OS that could
gracefully handle CPUs disappearing on the fly. It would
be nice if you could mark a CPU as "pending shutdown" or
something and have processes gradually migrate to other
boards. Fit solenoids so that a board can physically
eject itself once it's shut down. :-)
|