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

I think everyone here has made valid points.
to play devil's advocate to my friend Martin (deadpan110@gmail - see
his post for a passionate view about oM and virtual hosts):

If virtualised hosts could also benefit from the asymetric
multi-processing that occurs with an oM cluster (with the entire vm
bouncing back and forth between nodes to acheive maximum processing
capability), then oM needn't be the inverse of virtualisation of
hosts. Instead of making a group of machines appear to be one single
entity, you can make a group of disperate hosts appear to be one
entity with multiple virtualhosts. In this mannar we would be
following the trend in virtualising hosts, while still keeping our
approach of expansion capability. Instead of having to commission a
series of new super powerful hosts to support the ever increasing
swathe of virtual hosts, it would be possible to add COTS hardware
into a cluster and provision new virtual hosts without needing to set
up advanced routing as, to the world, the systems appear to be one
logical unit. This would allow a cluster of COTS hardware to appear to
be a single MainFrame-esque unit but, instead of being one ungainly
mass of circuitry that is custom-designed for the job, you have
yourself a completely scalable infrastructure that can grow to meet
ever demanding tasks. you would also not have to replace the entire
mainframe in one-fell-swoop just to increase your capacity, instead
replacing older subsystems (a single x86/64 machine) and upgrading
little by little.

-- 
Regards,
    The HoneyMonster aka Daniel Llewellyn

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/