|
I hate to re-hash something that's been covered already, but I thought the
release of TurboCluster 6 was good enough reason. Does anybody have the
beef on 6.0? What is the difference between it and LVS? What is this about
"implemented as an application"?
Another question. What is the best "packaged" free LVS implementation?
Ultra Monkey? Piranha? Other? I know that "best" is subjective, but
sometimes there are clear winners (like Apache). If there are no clear
winners on the best "package", then what are your opinions?
Thanks,
Dan Browning
Network & Database Administrator
Cyclone Computer Systems
List: linux-virtual-server
Subject: Re: Turbo linux clusters as compared to lvs?
From: wanger@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: 2000-05-16 15:30:13
[Download message RAW]
On Tue, 16 May 2000 06:17:38 -0400 (EDT), Joseph Mack wrote:
>You people read our mailing lists, have access to our code and yet never
>contribute anything here. Yet you are quick enough to pop up and defend
>your clean room reconstruction of our code, whenever it's mentioned. If
>you were really doing this independently of us, you wouldn't be on our
>mailing list. If you were on this mailing list in good faith, you would
>have contributed something by now.
Well, I jsut paid $995 for the 2-node version of TurboCluster 4.0.
I've installed it, played with it, examined it, the LVS project has
*nothing* to worry about. We simply need a marketing machine to match
the mouth of TurboLinux. They are still using some incarnation of the
old Red Hat 4.x installer (horribly broken), they couldn't support
Compaq Proliant PII machines without me hacking my way though things
(heck, their installer couldn't even detect a Mach64 video card). Of
course there is the fact that their network config tool supports dhcp
client side, however, they don't ship the userspace bit (/sbin/dhclient)
that their scripts look for, etc. etc. etc. Also notable is their very
elegant method of hardware autodetection during the install. Just
insmod all driver modules and check the return codes for successes.
Its a good thing they changed their name from Pacific Hi Tech as this
stuff certainly isn't very "high tech".
Then there is the matter of their "fancy" GUI config tool for their
clustering administration. Well, they have a text based NEWT tool that
supports modular config tool additions of which, they add 2 for cluster
support. Then when you launch, their "X" based tool, its the same
thing, just using X fonts instead of the NEWT fonts and it runs in its
own xterm.
Then we can talk about their kernel module, they have a significantly
lower number of features of Wensong's code. You know, things like NAT
routing and least connections scheduling. So, my conclusion is, we
(the community) and companies (Red Hat, VA, etc.) that produce Linux
clustering applications and tools have very little to fear.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Wangsmo Red Hat, Inc
"I think qmail got mad, took its ball and went home." - Steve Wills
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Log in / Log out
About MARC
We're Hiring!
Want to add a list? Tell us about it.
The AIMS Group
|
