Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Oracle's GPL Linux Firewire Clustering 168

Posted by CmdrTaco from the not-a-bad-idea dept.
Smoking writes "It seems that Oracle just released libraries to allow low cost Linux clustering solutions using firewire... Aside from the coolness factor (imagine a beowulf cluster of DV cameras...) it's quite new for Oracle to release GPL software. They also seem to include really useful tools for NIC failover, Wizard building framework and integration of the cluster into Gnome (via a gnomevfs plugin)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle's GPL Linux Firewire Clustering More

Oracle's GPL Linux Firewire Clustering

Comments Filter:

  • Thanks Oracle! (Score:5, Funny)

    by zulux ( 112259 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:23PM (#4651867) Homepage Journal
    I was wondering how I was going to cluster a group of PostgreSQL servers!

    Thanks!

    • Re:Thanks Oracle! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tekspot ( 531917 )
      On a serious note, it is great to see that large corporations pay more attention to OSS. They starting to understand, that by giving GPLed code to people, in return they will get great ideas, patches, and positive publicity in tech masses. Let's hope more corps will adopt this policy.

  • Cheap! (Score:5, Informative)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:24PM (#4651878) Homepage Journal

    The Firewire cards needed to build a cluster can cost as little as 10% as much as the required FiberChannel hardware

    Not to mention the FiberChannel switch. The Brocade [brocade.com] fiber switch we use to tie our three SGI Origins to our SAN's storage RAID was over CA$12K when we bought it.

    • Re:Cheap! (Score:3, Informative)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      The Firewire cards needed to build a cluster can cost as little as 10% as much as the required FiberChannel hardware

      Not to mention the FiberChannel switch. The Brocade [brocade.com] fiber switch we use to tie our three SGI Origins to our SAN's storage RAID was over CA$12K when we bought it.

      Yeah, but you only get 20% of the speed. Fibre Channel is at 2048Mbps now, compared to the 400Mbps of Firewire.

      • Re:Cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:52PM (#4652122) Homepage Journal
        Yes, but for some applications dropping $12k into the budget is not possible, and yet something similar at a lower cost would be ideal. Heck, this is cheaper than shared SCSI using brand name equipment. Not a bad compromise between speed and cost.

        --
        Evan

        • Agreed, but if you're running an Oracle database on top of all this, Id venture to guess you had a fairly large budget.

          You don't need the multiple thousand dollar switch to do Fibre Channel in a dual host configuration either. You can have a full working dual loop setup for under $2k+HBAs.

          I am quite impressed with the total cost of this though. At $10/per Firewire card, you can have a setup to play with that is cheaper than just the cables in a shared SCSI cluster.

          • Re:Cheap! (Score:3, Interesting)

            by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
            I'm not talking about running Oracle on top of it... if you have a project budget for Oracle, you can afford something better. Nor would I like to be the first to implement this in a production environment. :) That said, it's likely very stable, since it's on tested hardware and firewire drivers in general have been well tested. I'm thinking about situations where you'd normally have a couple servers sharing a big RAID via NFS over a small shared switch. This would fit into that level of sharing (and a few others as well), just better performance.

            What's going on with firewire anyway - is there a bandwidth increase on the horizon? I tend to follow server hardware, and I know squat about firewire other than the three names and it supports 128 devices without having to have a central server a la USB. Is this is a solution that would be even more attractive when a higher capacity firewire rolls out in six months?

            --
            Evan

            • Re:Cheap! (Score:2, Informative)

              by scm ( 21828 )
              800Mb/s and eventually 1600 Mb/s FireWire are on the way. I beleive it is widely rumored that Apple will be releasing the 800 Mb/s controllers soon. Sorry I can't find any good links to back this up at the moment...
      • Firewire (1392a) is 400Mbps now, but 1392b goes to 3200 Mbps, 50% faster than Fibre Channel. 1392b hardware (when it becomes widely available) might cost a bit more than 1392a, but imagine it will still be cheaper than Fibre Channel due to higher production volumes (bigger more diverse market).

    • Re:Cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DuBois ( 105200 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:32PM (#4651959) Homepage
      Not to mention the fact that FireWire is mostly self-configuring. I've not seen a self-configuring Fibre Channel anything.

      My office-mate just spent a week attempting to configure a Brocade-switched Fibre Channel setup for HACMP. In his defense, it was his first attempt at such.

      Everything I've ever heard about Fibre Channel reminds me of something Rube Goldberg threw together.

      • they that can give up speed(fibre channel), to obtain ease of use (fibrewire), deserve neither ;)
        • whoops ---(firewire).

          its not so funny anymore.
          im hungry.
        • they that can give up speed(fibre channel)
          Most people running a small operation don't need the speed of Fibre Channel. 50MB/s is enough. But FireWire2 is rumored to be 100MB/s and up (perhaps even 200MB/s). Note the MB (megaBytes).

          • Re:Cheap! (Score:3, Informative)

            by WatertonMan ( 550706 )
            FireWire2 is extremely exciting. Since Apple will undoubtedly include it as standard in their future machines it could make some serious networking/mulitprocessing stuff possible. I hope that OSS takes advantage of this. How about a port of POOMA that works off a network of FireWire2 based computers?

            (For those not familiar with it, POOMA is a math library for C++ that handles multiprocessing in a very easy way. Debug it on a single processing system and run it on a multiprocessing system) It was developed at LANL but a lot of people use it. With FireWire2 and a bunch of cheap systems you could get a lot of supercomputer performance very cheaply.

          • Assuming FireWire2 is IEEE-1394b, then try 400 MB/s (3.2 Gbps). Quoting from here [e-insite.net]:

            IEEE 1394b allows extensions to 800Mbit/sec., 1.6Gbit/sec. and 3.2Gbit/sec., all over copper wire. It supports long-distance transfers to 100 meters over a variety of media: CAT-5 unshielded cable at 100Mbit/sec., existing plastic optical fiber at 200Mbits/sec., next-generation plastic optical fiber at 400Mbit/sec. and 50-micron mulitmode glass optical fiber at up to 3.2Gbit/sec.

            (Note, it supports all speeds over copper for normal cable lengths, the optical for higher speeds is only needed for runs up to 100 meters.)
        • chef_raekwon wrote:

          > they that can give up speed(fibre channel), to
          > obtain ease of use (fibrewire), deserve neither ;)

          Hey! Nintendo uses firewire for the GameCube controllers and GBA links.

          You try telling Godzilla 2000 (www.godzillaoncube.com) and King Ghidora that they don't deserve speed and ease of use! (If you have a death wish .. ;)

          Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
          Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
          "Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000

      • Re:Cheap! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 )
        I have to confess that I don't actually know what HACMP requires at the switch level-- I've never used that particular HA implementation-- but setting up FC failover on SGI systems is about as simple as it gets. You just set a config file on the host telling it what the primary and failover device paths are for each LUN, and off you go. It requires no special configuration at all on the switch, so it's very close to plug-and-play.

        Not every application of fibre channel has to be complicated.
    • The web site does say that firewire is for "testing real application clusters", although real is part of product name, not an insult.

      I do wonder if a firewire cluster of high-end PCs will be any faster than one of it's components if it had an unshared, internal hard drive. Even if you have a bunch of old machines, it might be more tempting to buy a nice dual processor with tons of memory than spend more money buying firewire cards. Is firewire that fast that it's acceptable to use it for hard drive of the server big enough to need clustering?

      • Shrug, firewire cards are cheap if you look around. (A lot of the stuff in stores tends to be packaged with "free" DV editing software and the card price is inflated.) They'll support 50 megabytes per second, a bit faster than Ultra Wide or Ultra2 SCSI (40 MB/s).

        So I'd say so, yes.

    • Re:Cheap! (Score:2, Funny)

      by kperrier ( 115199 )

      The Brocade fiber switch we use to tie our three SGI Origins to our SAN's storage RAID was over CA$12K when we bought it.

      12K Canadian? Whats that, $50 US :)

      Kent

  • This comment officially sanctioned... (Score:5, Funny)

    by netsharc ( 195805 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:24PM (#4651884)
    Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of DV Cameras..
    • in a Girl's College Changing Room.
    • taping Natalie Portman?

  • Oh yea (Score:2, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 )
    Now imagine a CLIC cluster of these....

    Haha get it?! Because people are always like "imagine a Beowulf cluster..." so I said imagine a CLIC cluster! Haha! Genius!

  • I had hoped the firewire was for net (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tolldog ( 1571 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:28PM (#4651931) Homepage Journal
    I hoped that they were making strong firewire net connections and ways of channeling the systems together into some sort of hypercube formation.
    That would make it appear as a true parallel processing system and giving some API to take advantage of it. I guess something like that is still possible and with firewire being fast and cheap, it is something that may be worth looking in to.

    -Tim

  • Firewire's future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by runenfool ( 503 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:33PM (#4651962)
    This is great news for anyone that is a firewire afficionado. Because millions of people will be doing firewire clustering? No. But it does show the versatility of the standard. Its a shame that Intel has such a hard on to kill it, because firewire really is a great technology.

    As firewire begins to scale to higher speeds this looks like an even better method to connect not only things like computers and their peripherals - but things like your television to your PVR to your camera to your computer.
    • Has anyone else noticed how few new firewire products have been introduced over the last year? How everything seems to have been routed into USB 2.0?

      I'd point out how unfriendly that is to us Mac users, but somehow, I don't think they care.

      • Funny, I haven't seen any USB 2.0 digital video cameras lately. Plenty of FireWire ones, though. Nice being able to do a digital dub from one camcorder to another with just a cable, no computer.

        Haven't seen any USB 2.0 ports on high end A/V equipment, either (eg DVRs). Seen FireWire ports, though.

        Never seen anyone run IP-over-USB, but I have seen IP-over-FireWire. Kinda tricky connecting two computers with USB anyway, one end of the cable always seems to be wrong.

        I'm not sure why anyone would want to run a keyboard/mouse bus at 480 Mbps, anyway. ;-)

        (More seriously, I think there's just a general slowdown in introduction of new products because of the economy. I haven't noticed a particular difference in the number of firewire vs USB devices introduced.)
    • What is Intel's larger strategy? Why does it want to kill firewire? Because it legitimizes Apple's technology choices? Because it reveals how limited USB is? Enquiring minds want to know.
      • There are a couple of reasons Intel might want to kill firewire.

        1) It was designed by a competitor, Apple (who made the situation worse by implementing a high fee for a time). If it was designed by say, Microsoft or Dell, I doubt they would be working so hard to marginalize it.

        2) It uses no CPU resources like USB. Greater tax on CPUs = need for better CPUs.

        Intel would be well served to push IEEE-1394 (Firewire) as it encourages people to use their desktops for highly CPU intensive things like video editing.
    • Maybe they wanted to kill it at first, but I think that even Intel's had to accept that on some level people want it. Their D845PEBT2 motherboard has an option available for 3 firewire ports built in.

      http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bt2/index.h tm ?iid=ipp_dlc_deskmb+spot_d845pebt2&

    • Re:Firewire's future (Score:5, Informative)

      by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @03:30PM (#4653129)
      Firewire will never die. The reason is simple, the next generation of midi is based around firewire as the physical transport. The origional midi has lasted decades because it was well designed and met most of the needs of those using it, but more modern setups that need to send actual sound data, not just notes were poorly supported with the old standard. Now there is a midi standard that can do everything the old one can and also carry samples!

      • Re:Firewire's future (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Mattsson ( 105422 )
        Mmm... This is probably a bit off topic, but I've always wondered *why* there isn't a midi over ethernet standard.
        It would be great if I could just simply plug my synth's into my network and assign ip's to them.
        That way I wouldn't have to have a *separate* midi "network" and I would be able to use both my mac and my pc to make music without having to move my midi interfaces between the two. :-/

        And with gigabit ethernet availible, there's no problem with the bandwith being to small...

        Also, you wouldn't have to connect everything *exactly* like before when moving them.
        It really is hell to get everything back together in a working fashion when you've been out and about with your synth's... :-(

  • Firewire isn't just for DV! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coene ( 554338 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:34PM (#4651970)
    I dont know why every time Firewire is brought up, someone mentions it in relation to DV.. DV is one of the simpler uses for Firewire, the real treasure is in its ability to link ALMOST ANYTHING!

    This really is very cool stuff, and although I'm as suprised as everyone else about Oracle releasing open-source software (GPL nonetheless), it's another huge step forward.

    Things like this piss off Microsoft to the Nth degree. That rocks!
    • This really is very cool stuff, and although I'm as suprised as everyone else about Oracle releasing open-source software (GPL nonetheless), it's another huge step forward.

      if memory serves me correctly oracle announced a while back that it (the company) was going to be running on Linux starting this spring. It make a lot of sense to release the lib's to make it happen back to the community because now companies are more likely to be able to afford oracle software due to reduced licensing costs on Linux. thinking of FireWire only as a DV bus is like thinking of SCSI as only a scanner bus.

  • Survival Tactics (Score:5, Informative)

    by bovilexics ( 572096 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:34PM (#4651973) Homepage

    Actually, this is of no surprise to many that have followed Oracle over the past few years (perhaps 5+).

    Oracle has been incoporating many open standards into their products recently which has been necessary to help keep the company in a (relatively) good position in the database server market. In the past all of their technologies were proprietary with their custom SQL extensions and their custom language for stored procedures and triggers (PL/SQL). Oh, and Linux - forget about it.

    However much of that has changed and now they support Linux, XML, Java (I believe the first to have Java stored procedures), and a large portion of the J2EE platform with things like OC4J (their java app server based on Orion).

    See these links for just a sampling of what I'm talking about.

    Java Stuff [oracle.com]
    Linux Stuff [oracle.com]

    • >help keep the company in a (relatively) good position in the database server market

      I guess that with a market share of 54% [oracle.com], "relatively" is the key word in that sentence...

    • Re:Survival Tactics (Score:4, Informative)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:55PM (#4652158)
      Well, I wouldn't call their position in the database market "relatively" good. They're #1, and have been for a loooong time.

      The Java stuff is cute, but by and large hasn't been implemented much. People buy Oracle because it's been around forever, and has been tested probably more than any other software on the planet. PL/SQL is still, by far and away, much more popular than their Java app. PL/SQL is incredibly optimized and solid, whereas their Java solutions are still getting there.

      Their XML parser is definitely good, but the documentation for it is virtually nonexistent.

      I don't think that they're necessarily adapting because they have to. Their core business is very strong. I think that they're just trying to expand their market. Of course, they've had lots of misses too. Some of their apps, like Oracle Forms (which is incredible) and their very nice web server while used, aern't nearly as popular as their core RDBMS.

      And you forgot one of their coolest new technologies... OODBMS. Very bizarre. Very different. Hasn't taken off yet, but I've used it, and it's very very innovative.

      Oracle's not in any trouble *yet*. But I think that they're hurt every time they try to work their way into the low end market to compete against things like MySQL. Bad idea.

      • Re:Survival Tactics (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @03:45PM (#4653254) Homepage
        Um, OODBMS is not [exln.com] really [versant.com]
        that [neologic.com] innovative [adb.com], although I will agree that it is cool. I prefer PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] myself, but that's because I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on all the commercial databases. *shrugs*

        I apologise in advance if Oracle has redefined OODBMS to mean something different than I'm used to it meaning, but at least as much as I know what it is, it's hardly innovative. It's been around a very long time.

    • Re:Survival Tactics (Score:3, Informative)

      by Petronius ( 515525 )
      Actually, Sybase had Java stored procedures first.
  • buy a whole new round of motherboards that are firewire enabled! I wonder if you can create ring configs if you have two roots per PC.

    I wonder when Oracle is going to buy a company that produces firewire interface controllers... can you say instant SAN business?!?!

    Just kidding, I think...

  • Hey you ! (Score:1, Funny)

    by BESTouff ( 531293 )
    Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of DV Cameras

    That's not fair ! You just removed an opportunity for a +5 Funny comment !
    (kidding. I know it would have been -1 Boring)

  • Red Hat to use Oracle's cluster software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:46PM (#4652077) Homepage
    There is more Oracle news announced. This [infoworld.com] was just posted over at InfoWorld. Me thinks its as much a blocking move towards .NET, see below.

    From article.

    : Linux backers are working to strengthen the OS and bring it closer to competing with the proprietary versions of Unix that currently dominate the data center. Adding a clustered file system into Red Hat Linux is another step toward this larger goal.

  • hmm, not much there (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jpc ( 33615 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:50PM (#4652110) Homepage
    After going through the crappy registration process, what do I find: not much at all.

    The (code not available) firewire stuff is a fix to allow sharing of firewrire disks. Which has been in the kernel for quite some time (perhaps they submitted it), but it is hardly radical (couple of lines of code, if your hardware happens to support it).

    Seems more like a PR announcement to me.

  • Shared Disk (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:53PM (#4652134)

    Does anyone know how firewire makes it any easier to share a hard disk between systems, for clustering support? According to the Oracle description of the patch "Firewire allows developers to easily and cheaply build a clustered system on a shared disk, which is useful for testing clustered applications...".


    In a normal cluster configuration, SCSI provides an interface for allowing a hard disk to be shared between actual servers, so that if one goes down another can take ownership of the SCSI disk. Fibre is a common carrier, linking the computer systems to a disk array system (SCSI over Fiber), and Firewire could be used to replace it, but is the only benefit its expense?
    • Off the top of my head... yes. If you are just testing a cluster app that supports 2 nodes, then SCSI is fine. Change the id of one of the controllers and you'll mange without much problem. If you want to scale beyond that, your choices are fibre channel, firewire or a "SCSI over IP" implementation.
      Of those, "SCSI over IP" is very new and requires an expensive box that supports it (not to mention gigabit ethernet cards and switch). Fibre channel is pretty standard for large installs, but it's very costly abd SANs can be a real pain to setup. (I've done quite a few and would prefer to run screaming out of a room than do another with multiple vendors involved). Firwire is very easy to setup as long as you remember its limitations and very inexpensive. Consider that a 6 port firewire hub costs $99 at most (belkin.com) and firewire cards are at frys for $20. Add a few cables and a firewire drive and you're good to go.
      I think the big point here is that you shouldn't design a large database for production on the current firewire, but you could economically setup dozens of these for testing and development. It may only be for their own cost savings. Can you imagine how much it costs Oracle to run dozens of test clusters on Sun or HP boxes? or even just the cost of fibre channel boxes and host adapters to hook up to cheap linux clusters?
      Larry may have just saved himself a lot of $$$.

      Just my opinion, I know nothing.
    • Firewire is a peer-to-peer network technology: everything on the firewire bus is a node and can talk with any other node. Thus you can have two computers and a disk drive all connected, either computer can talk to the drive (or the other computer, for that matter).

      Of course, you probably don't want to have both computers mounting it as writeable simultaneously (kiss your filesystem goodbye), but that's a resolved issue.

      Andyway, a suddenly-dead computer would appear to have just dropped off the bus (hotplug is part of the spec), so the the other could take over, just as with shared-SCSI.

  • Proper way to connect these (Score:4, Funny)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:54PM (#4652141) Homepage Journal
    A cool project like this ought to be interconnected with a Hubzilla [charismac.com].

  • Firewire is not an alien technology (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kenp2002 ( 545495 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:54PM (#4652146) Homepage Journal
    Really people it's just a high speed interface. Not really that much different that an old serial port, just faster. Do you ohh and ahh over the fact you can hook up "almost anything" to a serial port? Of course not. Firewire is no more, or less, versitle than USB, older serial, or even parallel ports.

    Now is firewire had a liquid metal port that accepted any type of interface by morphing the connection, then firewire would be fucktacular! (Copyright 2003).

    P.S. Starting throwing Copyright notifications on your posts, the "media" is starting to post OUR comments in their papers without our consent!

    • Firewire technology is important. (Score:5, Informative)

      by phoenix_orb ( 469019 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @02:13PM (#4652310)
      My friend, I am unsure if you are purposely being obtuse, or just don't know about firewire technology.

      Firewire is hot-swappable. Try that with a external SCSI Drive. (not a hot swappable disk, the entire drive)

      Firewire doesn't need a computer to work. USB 2.0 and 1.1 need a computer for it to work, but you can actually plug a DV camcorder straight into a digital VCR.

      There is up to 50MB/s transfer rates (400Mbits/s) and the design is scalable, meaning the next iteration of Firewire will be 800Mbits/s, or possibly even 1.2Gbits/s

      Ease of use: FireWire cables are a snap to
      connectyou dont need device IDs, jumpers, DIP switches, screws, latches or
      terminators.

      Data and power: the FireWire cable carries data of course, but also power. I have one cable on my desktop for my iPod. It charges and synchs it to my iTunes with one wire. Serial doesn't do that.

      USB 2.0 doesn't have real world speeds at the advertised 480MBs. Firewire does.

      It is an industry standard. Bar none. Purchase a new digital 8 or mini DV camcorder. What do you get? A firewire port right on the side.

      So basically, I wish all ports were designed with the expandibility of firewire in mind. I can do just about anything with it. Now even if I have a super-duper fast parallel port, there is tons of stuff I wouldn't want to do it with.
      • Firewire is hot-swappable. Try that with a external SCSI Drive. (not a hot swappable disk, the entire drive)

        Well, technically an external SCSI drive can be hot swapped (I've done it), but having the bus idle while swapping is important. It's just not a good idea to yank out a drive when the bus is active. I haven't worked with true hot-swap drives; my hope is that they leave behind an intact bus when they are removed (otherwise, I guess hot-swap would be pretty moot).

        • Well, technically an external SCSI drive can be hot swapped (I've done it), but having the bus idle while swapping is important. It's just not a good idea to yank out a drive when the bus is active.

          To be pedantic, "technically" an external SCSI drive cannot be hot-swapped -- the standard doesn't support it. It just happens to work most of the time, when, as you mentioned, the bus is idle. It works great, until it doesn't work (when you fry your SCSI interface).
    • Firewire is no more, or less, versitle than USB, older serial, or even parallel ports.

      The additional bandwidth itself brings versatility. Can you watch a movie, listen to Internet radio, or play a network game over a 9600 bps modem? Yes, technically. But you wouldn't, because it'd be painful.

      Do you ohh and ahh over the fact you can hook up "almost anything" to a serial port?

      No, because you can't. The classic serial port was already inappropriate for the bandwidth required of a printer, over ten years ago.

    • here is a description of firewire from the IEEE (http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/1394bapp. html). it is not simply a serial port, and is more like scci or ethernet, and i believe it is based on pieces of each standard. (?--comments) the first clue would be peer connections--up to 63. i can not beleive that people would actually prefer usb 2.0 over, as opposed to in addition to, 1394. it has really great advantages over that technology. the article also diswcusses other cabling methods such as fiber and cat5--very cool!
    • > Starting throwing Copyright notifications on your posts, the "media" is
      > starting to post OUR comments in their papers without our consent!

      Copyright notices don't really do anything. Everything you write is automatically copyrighted by you. Furthermore, an explicit declaration of copyright already exists for everybody's comments. Read the bottom line of any Slashdot page:
      • All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.

  • BUS Limitations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @02:15PM (#4652337) Homepage
    I have a limitation on my Motherboard of 266 MBps due to the link from the north to south bridge.

    Could you connect a firewire card on AGP so that you can make use of the full 400 MBps that Firewire provides?

    • Reply to self: 400 Mbps. The excitement is gone :(

    • Re:BUS Limitations (Score:3, Insightful)

      by afidel ( 530433 )
      WRONG! your north to southbridge connections is 266MB/s (notice the big B) which is 2,128Mb/s which is roughly the speed of a fibrechannel connection (of course most fibrechannel adapters are installed on systems with much greater internal bandwidth). BTW, AGP is great for pushing data in one direction, but it sucks at bringing information to the system. For similar bandwidth to AGP get a server chipset based motherboard with PCI-X or infiband connections.
      • Thanks for the info. This is cool stuff.

        Yet, PCI-X and infiband are a lot more expensive and not too much wider and faster then AGP 8X when sending.
  • Anyone heard of it?
    -Max

    • Re:IP over FireWire (Score:2, Informative)

      by houston_pt ( 514463 )
      Could be a very good idea. Just googled-it and found a few cool links: TCP/IP over IEEE1394 [pcbuyersguide.com] ; 1394, i.Link, Firewire Networking [homenethelp.com]
      The speed of FireWire sure seems adequate to substitute some small network ethernet connections...

      Google is your friend [google.com]

    • Re:IP over FireWire (Score:2, Informative)

      by CMonk ( 20789 )
      It's been around for a while.

      Here's a page I googled. http://www.s.netic.de/gfiala/IP_over_1394.html

      General Linux/1394 info can be found at http://www.linux1394.org/links.html
    • As firewire should be able to do IP and there is as least one open source impleentation of SCSI over firewire, what's the problem?

      Actually SCSI over IP sounds real good, but older SAN implementations used other, simpler, non-routable datagram based protocols to make things faster. The regulur SCSI over IP is TCP based.

  • .. they're also in cahoots with mysql (Score:3, Funny)

    by outsider007 ( 115534 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @02:36PM (#4652580)
    I was over at mysql.com earlier and I noticed a large pop-up ad for Oracle 9i and I thought, hmm.. something fishy here, since when do companies advertise products for their competitors? I mean that would be like slashdot running microsoft ads.

    oh wait..

  • LINUX BOX as Firewire HD (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How about some code that lets linux act as a firewire Harddisk for other systems. I think they use the SBP-Protokoll. That would make SAN affordable.
    Have an old PII and a couple of IDE-RAID-Cards to build a TB Firewire HD.
  • But does firewire support multipath io with load balancing? A single point of failure in the hardware is unnaceptable. On a more serious note this is great as it allows for developers to test on cheap gear. That san with fiber channel we just bought for our clusters was one expensive dog.

  • Oracle is being a GOOD Open Source Participant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d3xt3r ( 527989 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @02:45PM (#4652678)
    It's nice to see Oracle contributing patches, reference implementations, and useful sample code back to the open source community.

    Oracle has jumped 100% on the Linux bandwagon and is pushing it as the OS of choice for RAC (real application clusters) and claimed to switch all their internal production servers to Linux in the near future.

    To see them giving code and "lessons learned" information back to the open source community is awesome. This is the type of business and open source relationship that proiveds a win, win for both the commercial party and the open source parties involved. Oracle benefits from a free and stable platform while contributing back to that community code that can help make the product (Linux is this case) better for everyone else.

    Thanks Oracle, nice to see you doing a good thing for open source.

  • I guess this is some strong evidence that all the anti-GPL stuff that MS put out has backfired.

  • Firewire for real clusters? I don't think so. (Score:5, Informative)

    by tonyhill ( 590105 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @03:06PM (#4652873)
    When I first read the post, I got pretty excited. Dreams of cheap clustering for scientific applications danced in my head. No more need for Myrinet [myricom.com], no Dolphin [dolphinics.com], just Firewire and Beowulf!

    Then, I read some performance metrics on Firewire. High bandwidth. High latency [evaluation...eering.com]. Doh! The fairies stopped dancing for joy.

    The problem is that in scientific computing, the time it takes for one node to say I need that data to another node, and actually get that data determines the performance of many more apps than does the speed of the CPUs.

    So, until a cheap, low latency solution for communications comes by, real clusters will be communicating over Dolphin [dolphinics.com], Myrinet [myricom.com], or some other propietary technology [sgi.com].

    Tony
    • Scientific clusters are not the only type of cluster you know. For instance Oracle Real Application Cluster is what Oracle thinks will be the companies future. These clusters may need the bandwidth of firewire et al and can live with the latencies.
      • Scientific clusters are not the only type of cluster you know. For instance Oracle Real Application Cluster is what Oracle thinks will be the companies future. These clusters may need the bandwidth of firewire et al and can live with the latencies.

        What RAC uses the cluster interconnect for is cache fusion. If a data block is in the buffer cache of another RAC node, the local node will get it via the interconnect rather than from the disk. So we need many fast small transfers, rather than few large fast transfers. If the latency of the interconnect is greater than the latency of the storage array (which may be a massively cached EMC) then it's not worth it.
    • Dolpin makes IEEE-standard SCI cards. They're only
      "proprietary" in the sense that they have no
      meaningful competition.

  • 2 Microtel Lindows Boxen 400$

    2 Firewire Controllers 100$

    1 120GB Firewire Drive 280$

    Cables and hubs 200$

    Kick Ass Lindows Cluster 980$ PRICELESS

  • Clueless Ellison (Score:3, Funny)

    by L33t-Geek ( 614706 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @04:03PM (#4653419)
    In reply to this Slashdot story larry ellison was quoted to say, "We did what? GPL? Open sorce? And what the hell is Firewire?" -Geek

  • GPL Nice... Registration bad. (Score:3, Troll)

    by Alron ( 12242 ) <alron@bloodmagic.com> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @05:06PM (#4653955) Homepage
    A thing to note about this nice software from Oracle... from what I found, you have to REGISTER on their website just to get access to it... Registration requires everything... phone, company info, home address, company address, you name it. Kinda intrusive for a GPL thing, no?

  • Yes, those things are cool.

    I'm not DB expert, so I'm curious:

    What about this 10.7 desupport [com.com] problem?

    Is Oracle being reasonable about the cost of supporting old software, or are they doing an MS-style push of their customers into an upgrade many feel they don't need?

  • Has to be one of the coolest computer peripherals in a while: http://www.charismac.com/Products/firedino/index.h tml Firewire hub/dinosaur!

  • The cost of Oracle.... ummmm nothing really! (Score:5, Informative)

    by IdleTime ( 561841 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @06:29PM (#4654647) Journal
    I have read several articles here why people prefer to use because Oracle is so expensive.

    Unless you are planning to use it in a commercial setting, Oracle is free as in beer!

    The latest version of Oracle for Linux can be downloaded from here [oracle.com]

  • No TCP/IP support (Score:3, Informative)

    by heroine ( 1220 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:28PM (#4655897) Homepage
    With all the shared filesystem, process management, localization features, they don't support the most basic of all: TCP/IP over firewire. Then again, we wouldn't be in a recession if managers were producing something useful.

  • great! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Wednesday November 13, 2002 @01:27AM (#4657101) Homepage
    now if only some enterprising storage device manufacturer would make an actual firewire drive, instead of the typical bastardized IDE-with-a-Firewire-bridge crap they've been selling. . .

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close