On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:14 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9...@9netics.com> wrote: > ericvh stated it better in the "FAWN" thread. choosing the abstraction > that makes the resulting environments have required attributes > (reliable, consistent, easy, etc.) will be the trick. i believe with > the current state of the Internet -- e.g. lack of speed and security > -- 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 <9...@9netics.com> wrote: >> >>> > 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. to 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. the main benefits being low >>> administration cost and elasticity. networking, authentication and >>> authorization remain as they are now. they are still not addressing >>> what octopus and rangboom are trying to address: how to seamlessly and >>> automatically make resources accessible. if you read what ken said 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". in all virtualization >>> systems i've seen the vm has to be smaller than the environment it >>> runs on. if vmware or xen were ever to give you a vm that was larger >>> 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. Both have issues of locality, where the >> abstraction that gives you the view of a single machine hurts your ability >> to account for the lack of locality. >> >> In other words, I think applications should show a single system image but >> maybe not programming models. I'm not 100% sure what I mean by that >> actually, but it's sort of an intuitive feeling. >> >> >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-28.pdf >>> >>> >>> > > >
