Re: openMosix vs KVM, Xen,...et al

David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Tony Travis wrote:
>
>> g4sra wrote:
>>> I have bit my tongue long enough. openMosix never did have, does not, 
>>> (and as far as I can predict the future) ever will, have anything to do 
>>> with Virtualization (even though that may have been the original 
>>> motivation).
>>
>> Hmm... [donning my best flame-proof underpants] I thought openMosix was 
>> actually the inverse of 'virtualisation'?
>
> I was going to say that, too.  Virtualization usually means making one 
> machine look like a bunch of smaller machines, so you can run multiple 
> operating systems or isolate different applications from each other.  
> OpenMosix tries to make a bunch of small machines look like one big 
> one.  It certainly doesn't provide isolation; one rogue program can 
> (and sometimes does) bring down the whole cluster.
>
Both hit the nail on the head, what openMosix obviously needs is it's 
own buzzword that means "inverse of virtualisation" (much prefer the 
English spelling, but then I would :>). Suggestions to the mailing list.....

How about "Invualisation" :>)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/