On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 15:39 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 12:15 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote: > > Cluster? HA! Bigger Single computer? HA! > > > > They have 8 processor machines with 64GB of memory already. The batch > > process can only utilize 1 processor. The other 7 processors, are > > basically idle. I've trended the entire machine for them. If they could > > LPAR the machine(s) out, they'd be marvelously happy. But they would > > need to get the memory upto 512MB or better and then multi-path IO for > > the swap... sheesh. It would be cheaper to just buy another machine and > > add it, but then they already have 3 hours at worst, 4 hours at best, of > > growth left. > > > > In any case, a "pre-batch" program assigns jobs to each machine, it > > takes nearly an hour to estimate loads. Again single processor usage. > > > > This whole package was never meant to scale. But it has been forced to. > > It also was meant to be a temporary fix until a new system was to be > > spec'd and written. Nothing ever came of the effort in the 70's and was > > dropped when this was "good enough". > > I suppose the holy-grail would be something that does for CPUs in boxes > what LVM does for disks: Allow a single-threaded process to utilize > multiple CPUs for more speed, those CPUs able to be both within one box, > and spread: a CPU pool and a memory pool.
That is pretty much what IBMs LPAR of AS/400 and AIX (and other hypervisor setups) do. Unfortunately, this company was "sold" a sooper-dooper machine in a deal for 2 of them. They would have spent more on smaller machines. But, IBM has sales quotas and deal deadlines for sales people. Forklift upgrades, full cabinet deals are pretty much the norm when it comes to the sales department. IOW, push more hardware, period, they'll eventually be suckers for upgrades. > The focus for a while seems to have been how to divide up a big computer > in to several smaller virtual servers (ala xen or IBM's LPARs). I > haven't kept up on efforts to solve a massivly sequential problem. > However, my interest is aroused. Massively sequential problems are very, very, very difficult to parallize. Even vectored processor systems balk and fail badly at massively sequential problems. > If you have a box with 8 processors and your process can only use one, > can you use something like Xen, designate one whole processor and its > memory to your main process and use the other processors as helpers? > (maybe you don't need Xen for that, I don't know). Yes, you could, but that is why I mentioned they would need 512GB+ of RAM and serious multi-pathing to the IO to get sufficient bottle neck reduction. It would be cheaper to just add smaller more "commoditized" systems aka "Linux" which the software vendor is still resisting. Or even just to add 2 processor AIX systems with 64GB of memory. > For example, if the process needs more memory and therefore uses swap, > and the MB is maxed out for memory, could another processor be used by > the OS to manage a multi-disk swap farm? Put another way, if a linux > box can serve data to saturate a gigabit ethernet, and it is possible to > create a block device that looks like a disk that really gets its data > over ethernet from another computer, can an 8-way MB take that input > and present a virtual swap device to one processor so that swap > functions at the same speed as memory? Wow, you have three ideas in one paragraph there. First off, let me tell you a bit more about the processing that goes on. First off, the "primary" machine goes through and does an estimate on the number of records pulled for each "billing job". It then assigns (in the DB) which defined machine will do what jobs. Each of these machines are defined with "capacity" info built into the script to determine the "amount" of work possible. Its a huge SWAG, that is tweaked until right, over the course of a few weeks. This then kicks off the processing of the previous days records. Each machine ALL of its daily info into memory, this of course creates a big problem... the 36 and AS/400 systems did not do this, they used piece-meal in methods. This behavior was changed during the conversion to use AIX. The static data in memory of course swaps out. This was causing the behavior of the machines becoming lethargic and not able to complete the processing in DAYS, falling further and further behind. Add enough swap to "cover" the anemic amount of working room problems fixed the lethargy. Though a back hack, it does work. Though, adding machines would be easier on the amount of memory required per machine to use, remember they were "sold" expensive systems. To much to allow for smaller machine that could actually work better. Now, idea number one. Multi-disk swap farm, already done, I've spread the swap out over multiple disks on the SSA channels/chains using logical extents with a policy of striping across multiple disk with contiguous allocations per disk. This gives near instant response, though it is still many magnitudes slower then memory. Idea number two. Using Gig-E with ATAOE or iSCSI, only gets you "about" 90-95MB/sec, providing you have TCP Offload Enabled(TOE) NICs on both ends. And to really be anything close to be able to do swap as quickly as I have it configured on the AIX machines, you'd need 8 or more bonded TOE NICs on each end... assuming either end can transfer the data over the "data bus". For commodity Linux machines, this is the Peered PCI bus. For the AIX machine... I think (I'll have to verify, but I just am using for example), nope... I ain't got it. But basically both ends have to have the capacity to transfer the data to get the speeds. Only that bonding with TOE NICs is not really a good idea as it defeats many of the advantages of TOE in the first place. And finally idea number three. Using memory as swap... It is a good idea... but then, the whole purpose of swap was that memory was not sufficient enough to provide enough working room. Going above 64GB of memory on ANY machine is not cheap. Not cheap at all. If I were going to use it as swap, I just assume use it as REAL working memory. AIX really doesn't have a set-in-stone maximum amount of memory it can support, so to use REALLY expensive memory as swap, I'd fire myself for doing that. Nice idea on paper, but in reality... not viable. > I guess that's called a mainframe :) No, mainframes are not really that "capable" as a holy grail to set your sights on. Yes they operate on a different set of standards, but over all, they were designed to handle large amounts of input and output in a very reasonable way. They really don't do computing any better or worse (subjective, yes, I know) than any other systems. The only real thing mainframes do better than many other systems, that I know of, is COST a lot of money to maintain and upgrade. > Greg, I'm just babling on this. If you have links for reading I could > do, I'd appreciate it. Then I may at least know what I'm babbling > about. IBM has a lot of goodies on publib http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/eserver/ Have fun reading *FOREVER*, I mean that literally. And if you have enough time you can also checkout: http://www.elink.ibmlink.ibm.com/publications/servlet/pbi.wss For even more IBM publications. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
