Re: Ksplice equivalent for VMS ?

In article <vp65ns$2gh03$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 2/19/2025 9:26 PM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <67b66f14$0$712$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

[snip]
Yes. Which becomes a little easier when restricted to a
cluster instead of any systems.

 
I don't know what you mean when you say, "restricted to a
cluster instead of any systems."

>
A and B being in a cluster instead of being two
standalone nodes.

Oh I see, you're using cluster here as a shorthand to
mean that they're in the same administrative domain.

                              If you mean that this somehow
makes managing state during process migration easier, then no,
not really; all of the same caveats apply.  For instance,
if a program is using (say) a GPU for computation, part of
migrating it will be extracting whatever state it has in the
GPU out of the GPU, and replicating it on the destination
system.
 
At one point, the internal numbering of cores in the GPU was
visible to code running on the GPU, creating an $n \choose k$
fingerprinting problem for migration.

>
A VMS server process will not be using GPU.

Sure.  GPUs, as compute accelerators, are just one example.
It could be some other resource.  The point is, process-level
migration is not a panacea; ksplice has its place, even with
its limitations.

I guess as part of the migration the process would need to
be non-CUR and release CPU (and GPU if VMS adds support for
CUDA or similar in the future).
>
Main memory will need to be migrated. And cluster will
not help with that.
>
But cluster with shared storage will help with disk files.
>
And cluster with shared SYSUAF will help with identity.
>
And cluster with shared queue database will help with jobs.
>

Besides, clusters can contain heterogenous systems.

>
Yes.
>
The nodes would need to be compatible.
>
Mixed architecture cluster is definitely out
of the question.
>
:-)

Correct.

- Dan C.