Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Ask Slashdot: "Be" is for Beowulf? 179

Posted by Cliff from the could-it-be-done? dept.
PhiberOptik asks: "Considering that BeOS is so adept at handling high I/O and network bandwidth, whould it make a good OS for a Beowulf cluster? I know that since BeOS is not open-source it would be harder to have applications made, but they would be easier to maintain; as BeOS has a standard set. Any ideas?" Could this be done? What OS characteristics are necessary for a Beowulf cluster?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: "Be" is for Beowulf? More

Ask Slashdot: "Be" is for Beowulf?

Comments Filter:

  • not really (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    BeOS is designed as a single user, desktop interface platform - sorta like windows. Out of the box you would not be able to do things like remote execution of commands, or even login remotely - something that would hamper such attempts. Besides, you would have every box running a gui and all the other things that it was *designed* to run. In addition the libraries and software for that have to be written separately, you could not just port existing UNIX clustering API easily. And finally consider the cost of licenses for a 100 machine cluster
    -- Anton

    (hey ytinasni)
    1st post?

  • Re:What? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Proprietary is not the opposite of standard.

    There are a number of proprietary implementations of Unix that comply with the POSIX standard.

    Take note that Linux is not POSIX certified.

  • Moderation (was Re: First Post) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have yet to see moderation here done well. This is an excellent example... an intelligent, informative post, with a bad title. If it had been titled anything else, it probably would have gotten a 2, for being informative. Yet the post was both informative and had a subject that was off topic. Obviously the current moderation format is unable to deal with such subtlety... Wasn't it Neal Stephenson who wrote that intelligence is the ability to deal with subtlety?

    At any rate, I'm of the opinion that the poster has every right to be dissapointed with the current moderation format. The moderators have been chosen to help self-police a community which prides itself on individualism, intelligence and creativity. Yet as far as I can tell, all the moderators have managed to do is kiss up to celebrities, harass ACs, and mangle situations like this.

  • Re:Moderation (was Re: First Post) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They also, apparently, moderate down anything that casts the moderators in a negative light. That itself is inappropriate.

  • Re:Yes (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The same logic would be mostly correct. As it stands today, there is no denying that Linux excels primarily as a server platform and BeOS is a particularily good client platform. The two compliment each other particularily well. Be could do a lot worse than making BeOS run well with Linux as a server.
  • First of all, why would you want a Beowulf cluster of Be machines? The only thing I can think of that you would need any kind of clustering for BeOS is for distributed rendering, and most major studios just write their own software for handing off bits to Lightwave, etc..

    Other than that, forget it, your dual-400MHz P2 is more CPU than you'll ever need, running BeOS. Hell, with personalStudio 1.0 from Adamation, you can do real-time video effects with _ONE_ 300MHz cpu.

    I have a 400MHz P2 and I've never been able to use all the processor, other than mp3 encoding direct from cd.

    --M
  • Please stop lying. The Linux kernel is very generally very modular, especially with respect to filesystem/device drivers/network stacks.
  • Yes. It was offtopic. If you do not know why, go find a clue.
  • The figure you gave are still meaningless. In particular, the thread test specs are totally meaningless.

    Debugging threads is a nightmare, anyway.

  • Why on earth would you want to do DSM in software anyway? It might be an interesting experiment, but:

    • Traditonal networks are prone to packet loss, so in order to keep decent performance you'll have to use a non-traditional network (VG-AnyLAN, ATM, Myrinet, token ring, etc) that has guaranteed packet delivery.
    • If you are going to the trouble of using special hardware, why not implement the whole DSM system in hardware [systran.com].
  • If I saw $2500 lying on the street, I believe I might exert myself to pick it up.

    Heck, I stoop to pick up 5 cents. I once spent several minutes breaking a $10 roll or quarters out of the ice once (it was actually $9.75, one coin was missing).

    If that $2500 is american (which I suspect), that would get me another three dual celery boxen. I just got one (similar to the sub 1k dual celeron on TCU [tcu-inc.com], minus a few bits I already had) last week for $1655NZD (about $800USD due to tax). As you say, that $2500 is not in the slightest bit trivial.

  • My 386dx33 w/16M does a beautiful job as a ipmasq gateway. Mind you, that's for a phone modem, not a cable modem. I seem to max out at 500-600kBps, but I'm not sure if the cpu can't keep up of if it's the harddrives (they're old and slowish, 600-700kBps).
  • Fine, you can waste your money if you want to (so long as I'm not working for you). I can't and won't stop you (hopefully, I'll get some of it:).
  • Is the documentation for BeOS better? (If it exists at all, it's not hard to be better than the docs I've seen for GTK (1.0.x I think is when I last looked (I ran away screaming:))) If the BeOS APIs are well documented, of course it will be easy to program for BeOS. In Linux, the source code itself tends to be the documentation, which has its advantages (it's always correct) and disadvantages (hard to find the information you're looking for).

    Closed source s/w has to be well documented or you will almost never be able to get anywhere with it; you can't look at the source to see how to use a function. Open source s/w can get away without docs because they are, for the most part, redundant (though even a synopsys of what's where, or a diagram or two, would be a big help).

  • My Tulip (040) runs just fine under BeOS...
  • Posted by SmashPHASE:

    I may have gotten this wrong, but last year
    (october orso) I had some conversations with some BeOS represtatives at a fair and from what
    they demonstrate and what they where telling me,
    I got the impression that BeOS has is dedicated purpose for being a creative multimedia platform
    (OS) just like Novell has it's purpose of being a Networking plantform (OS).
    I thought BeOS was no match for Linux( being a multi-purpose OS), did I get it wrong?
  • Why, yes, I believe it could.

    Call me crazy, but maybe trying to make Rob Malda look stupid is the wrong thing to be doing with your .sig around here. Hard to believe, but some of the regulars are a little protective of the guy.

    Equally bad would be 'Alan Cox - you are what you eat' and 'Linus fscks penguins.'

    If you want to be taken seriously, get a new .sig.

    Mine's not that great, but it's not flamebait.

    Don Negro
  • Please inform me how GUY makes a computer slower. If you are sitting in front of computer, dragging/resizing windows using 32bit pixel depth, yes, then the GUI slows the computer down. If you aren't using GUI, it should not take any CPU (except for OpenGL screensavers :) from the rest of the system, unless the system design is serisously flawed.
    Besides, you can shut down BeOS GUI and use telnet/bash only...
    J.
  • I was (trying to) replying to the "Beowulf/GUI"...
    Oh well...

    J.
  • Give it a rest. You deliberately (I hope) provoked the moderators with a First Post subject line. Not to mention your comment was all of one sentence: 'It uses so it should be easy to port'. That kind of post is uninformative and the /. equivalent of aol'rs "me too!"


    _damnit_
  • The information in your quote consists of: "Beowulf is based on PVM and MPI, I forget which, maybe both..." How informative is that, eh? You could have looked it up to be sure if you weren't concerned with First Post status and wanted to inform the /. community.

    Incidently, from the Beowulf Programming overview: "The Beowulf distribution includes several programming environments (all developed elsewhere) and development libraries as individually installable
    packages. PVM, MPI, and BSP are all available. SYS-V--style IPC and p-threads are also supported."


    _damnit_
  • Read the Beowulf website. The specific reason why
    NASA went with a free OS in the first place was
    that it's typically necessary to make
    modificiations in the OS in order to get decent
    performance. Computational clustering like Beowulf
    stresses systems in a fairly unique way, and most
    general purpose OS's don't rise to the challenge.
    BeOS may be a great OS, but I suspect even Gasse
    himself wouldn't be surprised if it didn't meet
    Beowulf needs perfectly, and consequently required
    some mods.

  • PVM and MPI (Re: First Post!) (Score:3)

    by pabs ( 1629 ) on Wednesday July 14, 1999 @03:12PM (#1802499) Homepage
    Beowulf clustered applications (along with COWs and many other distributed systems) are developed using mainly MPI or p-threads. There is almost no good reason to use PVM except to support legacy code.

    And of the two, MPI is generally vastly superior to p-threads because (IIRC) MPI is a higher level implementation which provides communication routines that are optimized for each particular hardware implementation (depending on the version/implementation of MPI). For example,
    the actual implementation of MPI_Reduce() will vary depending on whether the nodes are in a shared/non-shared memory environment -- in a non-shared environment (eg. a Beowulf cluster), MPI uses a tree-method in order to distribute the data among the nodes in parallel.

    Anyways, the point is that MPI is really just a communications specification (Message Passing Interface) with language bindings (C and Fortran). What you really want is a set of client/server daemons that _implement_ MPI.

    Okay, I'm done with the conch now.
  • Yes, a DEC Tulip card worked fine in R4.0, but wouldn't work in 4.0 anymore. I took a 3Com 905B from my other machine which worked just fine.

  • Does anyone have any numbers on BeOS performance. As those of us old enough to vote know, every commercial OS vendor signs their own praises:

    • "Blazing New Speeds!!"
      This means that the new release is either faster than an old one, or that it seems faster due to increasing CPU speeds.
    • "Powerful Server OS!!"
      Utterly meaningless in most cases. Maybe they include some primitive, closed web-server?
    • "Advanced Filesystem"
      Could mean many things.
    • "Unique Multimedia Capabilities"
      They've coded in hardware acceleration for at least two chipsets, support 32-bit color and they have some new widget type hacked into one of their "control-panels".
    • "Outperforms Brands A and B"
      After conducting numerous comparitive tests, they found one test which, under certain (silly) circumstances, does indeed outdo the competition.

    Production is the only true benchmark.

  • Oh, yeah... "they" all do that.

    Come on -- who's a moderator around here and who's not changes almost daily, as far as I can tell. I've got doubts there are many people out there moderating for the sake of making their "clan" (which they might not even belong to tomorrow) look good.

    Not a moderator today, but have been a few times,

    T.
  • Compliant means it runs POSIX programs.

    Certified means that a standards organization has OFFICIALLY DECLARED that it runs POSIX programs. This is usually expensive. Good testing isn't cheap, and standards organizations are often profit based. Apparently this hasn't been done for Linux yet.

    I don't know which organization handles the POSIX trademark. (service mark? copyright?)
  • the program for BeOS is called SockHop [ucsd.edu], read the overview [ucsd.edu] to learn more about it. Sure programs have to be written for SockHop, but it looks powerful
    --
    http://www.beroute.tzo.com
  • Could always get those machines with BeOS pre-installed, thus getting a free liscence. :)
    Remember, Be gives the OS away for free to anyone who'll pre-install it.
  • Do the words "First Post" ring a bell? Even if it's just in the jovial fashion I took it for (as it must have really been the 15th or 20th) someone glancing through the post subjects would automatically label you troll. If I were a moderator just now I might have knocked you down as well. There are some things you just don't joke about on here and expect much sympathy about.
  • Speaking as a former member of the Maya team [I left Alias/Wavefront in June of 1997], and current commercial BeOS developer [MGI VideoWave II for BeOS] I would say that it would not be too difficult to port Maya to BeOS. It would be more difficult than porting to an X-based OpenGL system, so I would expect Maya/Linux to appear before Maya/BeOS.

    However, Maya's code base was designed to be portable across OSs and CPUs [thus Maya/NT], and in fact may still have a little bit of MacOS support in it. Now, since I left they may have added all sorts of non-portable cruft, but I doubt it.

    Just throwing in my 2 cents..
    Reid

  • The technology formerly known as "Wolfpack" (now NT Enterprise Cluster Server, or something like that) is intended for high availability (failover, etc). NT high performance clustering has been done, however. See, especially the "NT SuperCluster" at UIUC. There are a couple versions of MPI available for NT. I know of four, two no-longer-supported-but-still-available academic versions and two commercial versions derived from the academic versions. MPI-Pro (from MPI Software Technology, Inc.) and PateNT (from Genias) are the two commercial verions. Don't recall URLs, but MPI-Pro is advertised in Linux Journal, and if you're really curious, we all know how to use a search engine.
    Christopher A. Bohn

  • Yes/No (Score:3)

    by EngrBohn ( 5364 ) on Wednesday July 14, 1999 @10:22AM (#1802509)
    Technically, you could not build a Beowulf from BeOS -- the definition that Don Becker, Tom Sterling, et.al., provide for "What is a Beowulf?" is that it must have a free OS (Linux, *BSD, other) so that, if need be, optimizations to the OS can be made.
    That said, there's no reason you couldn't set up a "Cluster of Workstations" (COW) which is basically what you're thinking of -- it's been done with Solaris, NT, ... The limiting factor is getting interprocess communication libraries.
    Christopher A. Bohn
  • The telnet server stuff has already been covered, but more importantly, people seem to have this untrue belief that the GUI in be is necessary. Most everything in the OS is launched via startup scripts, including the GUI. Granted, since no other interfaces are available, it would make life a bit difficult to use without Tracker/Deskbar running, it isn't impossible to comment out all the necessary lines to boot with no gui, and launch the necessary software in that script (telnet daemon, beowulf client, etc.)

    seanf();
  • Considering that Beowulf is based on PVM and MPI, I forget which, maybe both, it should not be too difficult once those are ported.
  • This is built up frustration at the Slashdot moderators. They consistantly moderate posts incorrectly. The entire concept should be dropped.
  • They should bother to read the entire post before commenting on it then.
  • Moderators also moderate down anything that is not pro-Linux/pro-GNU. "News for Nerds" does not mean "News for Linuxers". Anything that is pro-BSD is usually moderated down. Anything that is pro-Be is frequently moderated down.

    It is not unusual to see random comments and junk marked "interesting" or "informative" regardless of the validity of the content. This is unacceptable behaviour the Slashdot moderators.
  • What does the fact that an operating system not being open source have to do with the ability to write applications for it? Just because something isn't open source doesn't mean it is any harder to develop for. I find developing under BeOS pretty easy, as a matter of fact. Nobody says you *have* to use the B class structure layed out for you. Prime examples would be the dozens of UNIX applications ported to the BeOS (ssh being a biggie).
  • You're just pissed off that your comment got moderated down, and for good reason.

    As a matter of fact, you have absolutely no basis for what you just said. Informative, insightful, and relevant comments get moderated up regardless of the subject matter. If a comment isn't pro linux, but has GOOD REASONING as to why linux isn't good, it's labelled informative. Get your facts straight before you start slinging accusations.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Be's networking isn't all that (Score:3)

    by k8to ( 9046 ) on Wednesday July 14, 1999 @10:01AM (#1802524) Homepage
    Given that Be's networking performance is yet to come close to Linux's, and that Beowulf traditionally uses TCP/IP for their implementation of MPI, etc., I can't see Be being a stellar Beowulf performer at this point.

    I also don't see why you need to have a "single set" of software for an OS for use with Beowulf. I'd think you could handle installing the same software in your given cluster, and I don't know of software for Beowulf that people are wanting to distribute in a binary-only fashion. Do such beasts exist?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a Be fan, and I run it on my home box for weeks (sometimes while doing Linux technical support ;), but I don't see how it would be even as good as Linux for Beowulf purposes.

  • Re:What? (Score:1)

    by sp- ( 11321 )
    it is, however, POSIX compliant.
    what does it take to become "certified", as you put it?
    ------------------------------------------
    Reveal your Source, Unleash the Power. (tm)
  • It costs a lot of money to go through the certification process...
  • Dumbass, why in the hell am I a troll?


    Probably because of "first post" in the subject line.


    Re. moderators being stupid, remember that hundreds of moderators will read your message. Any incidental stupidity will average out - so your final score probably _will_ reflect what the average active slashdotter thinks it should be. If you disagree with this, well and good, but that reflects a difference of opinion as opposed to "stupidity" on the moderators' part.


    Moot point for the moment, though, as this has only been up an hour or two.

  • While PVM, MPI, etc. might need tweaking to be ported, I don't see why you couldn't do distributed processing over BeOS boxes. I've been toying with the idea of implementing something like that myself in my (mythical) free time.


    In practice, you can set up clusters on just about any system that supports both multithreading and networking. YMMV.

  • However, Sounds like it could all get expensive, $50-60 a copy per node.


    Um, the boxes that you are clustering will probably cost enough to make $50-$60 utterly insignificant, even if you use cheap celeries. My cost estimate for building a cluster of my own was about $400 US per node for just hardware (still haven't done it yet, in case you were wondering).

  • For one thing, you can't add distributed shared memory support to the kernel.


    True. However, depending on the application, workarounds could suffice. A scheme that I speculated about would have a "lock memory region" command that you would call before accessing a data structure, that paged it in from the remote box that it was stored on if necessary, and also handled coherence. You would unlock it when you were finished with it. This would have substantial overhead, but for many classes of problem it would be adequate.


    Similarly, for many classes of problem just a set of distributed clients with their own memory spaces would work. It all depends on what you are trying to do.

  • Anyone have any ideas? As far as I understand it, the DEC Tulip chipset is supported...


    I've heard other people report problems with this chipset too. Send in a bug report to Be (check their web page). They'll either revise it themselves (if it was an internally written driver) or get the contractor to revise it if it was something that they paid for.


    Re. the NE2000 compatible card, in principle that should work with the "NE2000" setting. In practice, who knows.


    From a purely diagnostics point of view, I'd suggest trying each of the cards individually, to see if having the two cards in at once is causing problems (the uninitialized card may be causing bus or IRQ contention).

  • You can't create a Beowulf Cluster using the BeOS. Putting aside the fact that the definition of a Beowulf cluster means that it runs on Linux, Linux alone will not be able to run on a Beowulf either. Certain security issues and kernal issues have to be resolved before it can run over a parallel processing computer.


    That assumes that you want to run the OS itself as a shared process. If all you want is a distributed application, this isn't necessary (though kernel support of shared memory helps, as another poster pointed out).

  • This is built up frustration at the Slashdot moderators. They consistantly moderate posts incorrectly. The entire concept should be dropped.


    I was here before the present moderation system was in place. It wasn't pretty. While some posts are unjustly moderated down (or up), the vast majority of moderation that I've seen has been deserved.


    In this case - I agree that it was an informative post. However, the moderator that marked it down didn't agree. If other moderators think that it was informative, it will be marked up again.


    Last but not least, the moderators are the _readers_. Read the moderator guideline documents, and the articles on the subject. If you browse slashdot regularly, and post, you _will_ get moderator access now and then. The whole "all moderators are corrupt" view looks a bit strained in this light.

  • How a GUI makes the computer slower:

    A GUI usually consists of many processes and each process may contain any number of threads. Besides the memory that these GUI processes/threads uses (most of which will get swapped to disk as they not used for long periods of time), they also have an entry in the process table. Ideally you would hope that the OS would only have to check the process table entries for these GUI processes/threads to see that they are sleeping during a context switch. However, because GUI's are message based they often contain timers/signals/etc that demand small amounts of CPU time (ie a screen saver timer). To make it worse, a timer/signal-handler may be in a process that has been swapped to disk thus causing a page-fault (which causes an interrupt, swapping of disk to memory, decrement of PC, etc). So really, even if a GUI seems like it is idle, it isn't and it is using valuable resources.
  • the answer depends on who's asking the question. I don't see them as competators. If I need an OS that can handle multiple users, can integrate well into an existing network (ie smb, ncp, nfs, appletalk, etc), is secure, has office applications, great for development, and can also do almost any server task - I'll deploy Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris/etc. However, if I were an artist or I was strictly doing multimedia I would use Be. Linux has a huge market (compared to Be's) and it is possible that they (Be Inc) will try to tap into this market by trying to compete with Linux - but I'd say they are apples and oranges. No OS will meet all the needs of everyone and I think Be's best bet is in the Multimedia nitch market. As soon as they try to compete as a "general purpose" OS they will be competing with Linux/*BSD _and_ NT. Then Be will be fighting off the OSS zealots with one hand and MS with the other - I don't think it would be a good move for Be at this time.

    just my opinion though.
  • - sure if the process if blocking waiting for a resource then the kernel doesn't need to give any attention. However, if a timer expires or if some other event occures (this happens often) the the process will need to be swapped back into memory any CPU time will be needed.
  • It was a useful comment! morons.

    -lx
  • Well, assuming that you aren't trying to use them both at once, the other things you should try are turning off 'pnp enabled os' in you bios, and uh, well, other than that they should work. I've gotten both a tulip and a pci ne2000 to work in be with no problem (setup in under 2 mins :)

    -lx
  • I find that Linux is acceptably close to the theoretical limits of the hardware I use when it comes to I/O and network bandwidth. So where is BeOS's supposed advantage supposed to come from?

    There are some special purpose applications where an OS can make a real difference. Traditional operating systems, for example, have trouble keeping up when there are a lot of tiny chunks of data that need to be processed by user-level server processes (one of the reasons why routing, logging, and nfsd are in the kernel). There are some operating systems specifically designed for such applications, but they have to make other trade-offs. And I don't see this being an issue with Beowulf applications.

    Marketeers like to make claims about one system being a lot faster than another (c.f. Windows NT vs. Linux), but in practice, I find those are pretty meaningless.

    For Beowulf in particular, given that it's being developed with Linux and given that the people on the project know very well how to hack the Linux kernel and networking code, even if there were a bottleneck in some release of Linux, it's a good bet that it would get fixed really quickly. How much effort do you think Be Inc. is going to invest in addressing performance problems for distributed scientific computing, given that their target market is desktop multimedia?

  • BeOS!!! by the way BeOS rocks I used Suse for five months and BeOS rocks way more. It's faster. And POSIX complient just like linux. any posix command line app can be used on BeOS
  • As per the subject line. Not to be interpreted as some crazy pro-BeOS zealot, but BeOS runs without a problem on my machine, which was built specifically for running the BeOS (all the hardware in it was certified on the Be compatability list).

    Without knowing the details of your system, I'd suggest that you remove any cards that aren't supported under the BeOS to see if that fixes your stability problem. It isn't an ideal solution, especially if you're dual-booting, but if you don't have the need to boot into another OS for a while you might want to give it a shot.
  • Actually BEOS ships with a telnet server, so you *can* login remotely. BeOS is not a multi user OS though, so most of the services associated with a multi user environment are missing.
  • There is SockHop [ucsd.edu] for BeOS.

    Programs have to be written specificaly for SockHop and use its base class instead of BLooper (Be's basic thread + event loop class) SockHop also uses a set of classes to handle routing of BMessages between threads.
  • BeOS makes multi-threading pretty simple... for
    the most part, you're automatically writing a
    multi-threaded app whenever you subclass from
    BApplication...

    cool.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  • It wouldn't be a Beowulf Cluster, because they run on Linux. Doesn't BeOS have a native GUI, this would be an overhead. Linux has the advantage in that you can disable everything except what you need to optimize available CPU time. I think that Beowulf-type clusters will remain on the Linux kernels, possibly xxxBSD.
  • I talked to Chris Scott a few months ago, and they said that a BeOS-version is more likely than a Linux-version. That might have changed by now, however. And thats what I would like.

    Shinobi - Inquisitor of CoJ, Champion of Lady weeanna
    "Why despair? We are all going to die anyway!"
  • If Maya was ported to BeOS, I would definitely want a BeOS-cluster. CPU-usage simply depends on the level of complexity of your scenes/movies/animations. Ive been working several thousand hours with 3d-graphics, compositing and video-editing on several different platforms, including SGI/Irix, NT(Intergraphs mostly), Macs, under Linux and BSD and BeOS, and I can testify that a 300Mhz P2 is NOT enough for high-end work in above-mentioned
    fields. In mid-level work (A few thousand frames in 768*576) its quite easy to make 10 P2 Xeons to choke, and thats an optimized scene. Trust me, Im talking of my own experiences. With good programs for BeOS, and clustering-ability, BeOS could be a good contender, certainly better than Linux and *BSD because of their severe deficiencies in the graphics and computing-areas compared with BeOS. And I dont find BeOS proprietarity to be a problem. In fact, it seems to help rather than hinder in their case.

    Shinobi - Inquisitor Cult of Jolt, Champion of Lady weeanna "Why despair? We are all going to die anyway!"

  • What does the fact that an operating system not being open source have to do with the ability to write applications for it?

    Because with something like this, you are likely to want to make modifications to the operating system. For the most obvious example, Be's proprietary status will make it difficult to strip out that pretty GUI, which you don't particularly want to be running on every node in your cluster.

    I was under the impression that these days network shared memory is generally considered a bad idea for performance reasons (by abstracting away the distinction between local and nonlocal data you abstract away much of your ability to optimise for performance), but there are a number of other kernel modifications the beowulf [beowulf.org] people have made.

  • You are absolutely wrong. Be has a telnet server, and the GUI is not an essential component of _any_ application. Many things are done with bash scripts.
    The fact that a system has a GUI does not make the use of this GUI a precondition for any application.
  • I think there is moderation bias, once a post has got a 2, it's much easier for it to get a 3 or a 4 or 5, getting that initial 2 can be tough though.

    I don't think that much of the bias is based on topic though. I have yet to see a really informative post moderated down, I've seen them not get that 2 but I haven't seen any animosity towards some subjects. There is a difference.

    If a post is pro-Linux or pro-GNU or pro-Be or pro-BSD, I generally don't see them being informative or cream of the crop type posts. The truly informative ones don't have a bias towards a product. there will naturally be bias posts that are full of information though and since there are far more linux heads here they will more be promoted more often, I don't think that is always bias towards the products though. Of course I don't read all the posts so I don't know, if you could post some links to articles which were moderated down it could be useful, send them to Rob and maybe he can weed out the bad moderators.

  • ..yeah and it (BeOS) crashes almost as much as windoze on my box. I like BeOS but I think it's got some growing to do.
  • No I'm running 4.5 (x86) on a PII System. The last crash occured while running netpositive. Most of my crashes occur when trying to use the ext2 pluggin... especially when trying to copy large files (like my entire mp3 collection).
    Also Had it crash while using my wintv card.
    My hardware is pretty plain.
    PII 400mhz
    64MB RAM
    56k Modem
    Riva/TnT agp card
    Hauppauge WinTV card (404)
    NetGear FA310TX ethernet card
  • No actually it was the crappy 2.x. I have since tried the 3.x and yes that is far worse than the stable release.
    I run Linux all the time and have netscape crash at least once a day but it doesn't take down my whole system.
    And yes i can understand the plugin causing the problem when it crashes the system.

    rimez
  • Why has this been labelled "Flamebait". The original claim as it stands is "BeOS has a standard set." My question is "A standard set of what?" That's not flamebait, that's genuine confusion.
    ---
    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • I know that since BeOS is not open-source it would be harder to have applications made, but they would be easier to maintain; as BeOS has a standard set.

    A standard set of what? If you are talking about system calls, I wouldn't call Linux "non-standard". In any case, "proprietary" is the opposite of "standard".
    ---
    Put Hemos through English 101!
  • Be supports telnet "Out of the box" so both remote execution of commands and remote login are possible, it is designed as a single user OS, but it does have those two capablites.

    As a Beowulf OS it is most likely not the direction that Be would want to go. Other than render farming there are not many multimedia applications that would benifit from clustering. That is the main design goal of Be, to be the media OS.
  • It's more than 10% of the hardware cost - I'd call that significant!
  • ...and they'll get moderated up, and you'll get moderated down, again. Hey, LOOK!, you're already down to zero!

    This moderation does suck, in a big way, but hey, it's not my site, it's andover.net's. Back In The Day, pre-moderation, the jerks would often try to drown out the conversation, but now they have moderation powers. It helps their cause a lot. I have my threshold set at zero, and I find myself reading negative-index posts more and more....
  • Point made again! At least "Off-topic" has some basis in fact, unlike calling Fascdot's post Flamebait, which it was not.
  • What part of "moderator" isn't clear. If they posted everything, you would've gotten the link I submitted to the Klingon porn site.

    Everything you read anywhere is pushed through some subjective filtering. We read slashdot because we share tastes with the moderators and appreciate their choice of articles.

  • 50 x $400 = $20,000.

    At that point, +/- $2500 is a lot less significant.

    This is false. $2500 spends exactly the same as 12.5% of $20K, 50% of $5K, or 200% of $1250. $2500 is $2500.

    If I saw $2500 lying on the street, I believe I might exert myself to pick it up.

    --

  • Any moderator that is using their own biased agenda to moderate perfectly good posts down is not following the guidelines and the post with the offending score should be reported to Rob Malda.
    I'm surprised to see that people have such a problem with the moderation since the posts are moderated by readers like themselves. If you post enough, and read enough you will get a chance.
  • Christopher Thomas - good response re. moderation!

    I think the moderation would be better if if was more widespread, though ... what percentage of the slashdot populace has moderation privelege at any one time?

    There are quite a few things that get knocked down which perhaps ought not be, but when you are the moderator it's tough to dole out points to correct things like this. Maybe the averaging effect would work better if there were more people with moderation power at any given time, or if moderators had more points. Or (dare I suggest such a complicated thing?) there were specific points allocated for correcting over- or under-moderated posts? Actually, that wouldn't really add anything special other than semantically, since you could already spend your points up or down.

    Just a thought -

    timothy

  • BeOS is as much a general purpose OS as Linux.
    Multimedia is a niche they chose because they feel that to have a good story, they need focus. The same logic would call Linux a server platform.
  • Thats funny, I was running a beos box for a while and i found a dialog box where you can enter user info so people can telnet and ftp into the box. I telnetted into my box on a number of occasions to I could start my web server remotely. Worked every time for me....
  • Proprietary is not the opposite of standard.

    Proprietry is indeed the _exact_ opposite of standard.

    There are a number of proprietary implementations of Unix that comply with the POSIX standard.

    Possible, if you mean proprietary in an area that doesn't conflict with POSIX.

    But I beleive that you are confusing proprietary with non-open-source. Which are completely unrelated.

    While it might be difficult to keep something proprietary in an open source project, any closed source project can certainly have either proprietary or standard interfaces.


  • Take a look at "www.compactnet.com" - this is a cluster in a box, using a parallel PCI backplane to aggregate performance and processing power.

    Widgets Of Webdom.
  • Since I've put together one of these things, I thought I'd comment.....

    The majority of the problems we like to solve are not the "embarrisingly parallel" problems like rendering frames of animation or bits of a single scene in a 3D picture. CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) applications (along with most other engineering apps) is matrix algebra intensive. Imagine matrices too large to fit into the RAM of a single processor (1e6 x 1e6 of 32-bit fp valuese, say). We divide this matrix up into sub-matrices and put the parts on the various nodes of the cluster. When we want to do matrix-vector multiplication there has to be a fair amount of communication for that to happen.

    The point is that we require two things, high memory bandwidth (good cache helps here, but not enough), and low network latency. With fast ethernet the costs (in time) of sending one byte of data between two machines is nearly the same as 1k byte.

    We don't particularly care about the OS as long as it stays out of the way. If the networking latency under BeOS is bad, then it's a bad OS for the cluster. If Be is constantly doing stuff in the backgroud, then it's a bad operating system for clusters.


    There's nothing stopping anyone from porting MPI and giving it a try though.........
  • let's see, 1e6 x 1e6 x 4bytes, thats 4e12 bytes.... hmm...

    obiviously we don't have to store the whole thing, but that's not really the point.

    matrix-vector products, also called matvec's (important in iterative solves of systems of linear algebraic equations) can be done faster in parallel than serially and are RAM bandwidth bound (not just amount). Then, after you do the part local to the processor, communications latency and bandwidth provide the bounds on performance.

  • Open-source software isn't any easier to develop per se, if you're a single programmer developing never-before-seen software. However, OSS does have the advantages of code-sharing, which (IMHO) makes it easy to build upon already existing apps, in order to get exactly what you want. It's great that the BeOS API is incredibly well documented and that they include tons of sample code, but can you take somebody else's app, modify it, and re-publish it freely, to allow somebody else to do the same thing? That's what this guy was talking about. I like the fact that I could write a little app, toss it into the net, and 2 weeks later, get a copy of my old app modified (hopefully improved) by a total stranger who thought it looked cool.
  • My main argument was that open source isn't always better software and OSS stuff like GTK, etc aren't instantly easier to write for. Every comment I have read written by BeOS coders say that they find it to be one if not the easiest OS ever made to write code for.
  • I know it is a crude test, but I used my watch's stop watch to clock the boot time for Win98 vs BeOS r4.5

    BeOS: 15 seconds (I had a 300kb compressed jpeg background res:1024x768 and 32-bit color)
    Win98: 1 minute 10 seconds (I had a 2mb bmp res:1024x768 and 32-bit color)

  • That's not what most BeOS developers say (Score:3)

    by agtofchaos ( 56094 ) on Wednesday July 14, 1999 @10:41AM (#1802575) Homepage
    "I know that since BeOS is not open-source it would be harder to have applications made"

    What makes you think that open-source software is any easier to develop? Be has documented the entire BeOS API and provides tons of sample code on every CD they sell. If you subscribe to the Be developer newsletter then they usually send more sample code plus tutorials in every issue. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-linux. I do question the logic behind GPL'ing apps all the time. As a person trying to learn C++, I want to be able to make money off of the app itself... not supporting it. OSS has its place, and it is definitely got an impressive list of apps. However we need moderation because an all OSS world is no different than an all closed source world.
  • 50 x $400 = $20,000.

    At that point, +/- $2500 is a lot less significant. If, however, you are patching a cluster together out of old machines, then $2500 is a pretty big deal.

    It all depends on your frame of reference.

    -awc
  • Well, you can use multiple network cards, but it makes the network run slower, not faster, hence the Mindcraft debacle. So I guess multiple NIC's aren't critical to a Beowulf.

    Of course, the new threaded TCP/IP stack is now in the development version, so Linux should soon excell at benchmarks, and it might help cluster apps too.
  • I disagree - printf is just as useful, and is my primary source for debugging, no matter whether I'm doing single or multi-threaded programs.

    Yes its harder, but not too much so once you get used to it. I find signals much harder to debug, but then I don't have that much experience with them. And besides, the power of threading, especially in BeOS, is well worth it.
  • And which test would that be?
  • Hey - what crashes? I'm curious.
  • While BeOS is great on recognizing hardware and making it "just work", like all operating systems it sometimes doesn't work perfectly.

    My first suspicion would be that the cards aren't supported -- though the hardware support list includes them, so a) maybe they're not what you think they are (i.e. are you certain of them), or b) there's a hardware conflict on your PCI bus (or somewhere else) that Linux works around but is blocking Be? I don't know enough technical info on hardware to know why this might happen, but I've heard it can.

    Good luck!

  • Be is a smallish company that is very accessable. From my dealings with them, I'm reasonable sure that if you were building a cluster, they would cut you a terrific deal. They would likely even give you the software for free just to see you do it. They are strong on encouraging people to develop.
  • Either you are still running DR 1 or you are trying to run it on a K5 type system. BeOS has been more or less rock solid since DR8. 4.5 in particular has never crashed on me.
  • Okay, one test showed that Be threads could be made 10 times (literly) faster than Linux threads. (Btw Linux threads were slower than NT threads.) Second Boot conducted an independant test of 3.1 and were able to blit 600 frames per second using BDirectWindow and 2 PII 300s. 3rd. Use BeOS and feel the responsiveness of the UI.
    4th. Look at the specs for BFS. Watch how quickly it can search the file sytem. Need I go on?
  • The topic I was responding to said that Be had no proof that BeOS was faster, just a bunch of marketing phrases. My point was that you can get 600 frames per second through X, that linux threads are slower, and that BFS can do huge filesystem searches very quickly (Some one in another topic posted that he searched every file on his computer with the letter 'E' and it came back with 10,000 hits in a few seconds.) How are any of these figures meaningless? Just because they don't test network performance?

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close