RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

high performance computing, HA and RPM5

From: devzero2000 <devzero2000@rpm5.org>
Date: Mon 07 Dec 2009 - 13:47:01 CET
Message-ID: <b086760e0912070447v3aa05f7eg1c8ec6d326cfde2@mail.gmail.com>
High performance computing systems are very popular for some time. The
problems of Hign Avalibility computer systems are common in the same
way.
The question is how a package management system as rpm5 can address
the problems of such environments. I have not found any reference to
such issues, in general systems package management system, as rpm5.
Overall this system are starting from the a simple assumption : a
single system and a single db metadata (dpkg have not a real db
however). But this assumption is wrong on a system of HPC: in general,
the applications are installed in the absence of a true package but
are installed manuallu on a file or network distributed systems: NFS,
GFS2, Luster for example. The problem, from my point of view, is that
applications are not installed using a package system like rpm5 but
installed manually: anyone thinks at this point it is sufficient to
create a virtual package with only "requires" for issue like update
conflict or the like  and it is difficult to prove the opposite: Why
should I install the same package separately on multiple nodes where
the package is the same and it is installed on the same place (on a
distributed or network filesystem). I have the opinion that a
distributed system requires a rpm5 metadata distributed database and
the fact that rpm5 includes a relational (or a sort of it in the
latest incarnation of berkeley db) database system like the model is
certainly an advantage - this what Iof a advocate  of the relational
model as Chris Date tell about this issue, last time i have checked.
On the pragmatic view, specifically, assuming the same (as patch
version) 100 nodes should be possible to extend / var / lib / rpm /
Packages  with a shared rpm5 Packages (extending _db_path for example
) on which should be able to act as a fragment of Packages (an Union
of Packages if you like ) and if this it is unavailable, well no
problem. The preceding are only a personal opinion. There are other
opinions? I have perhaps missing something ?



 Thanks in Advance
Received on Mon Dec 7 13:52:43 2009
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.