[CentOS] alternative to rocks cluster

[Steven Lee]

Tom,

FYI, If you are handy with SQL, you can customize a lot of things in  
ROCKS cluster, including node names.  Instead of using their packaged  
tools to deploy the nodes, you'd just have to pre-populate the SQL  
database with the correct information.  Unfortunately, the  
documentation is very poor so you need to be willing and able to look  
into the code and database schema to see how things work.  I've  
deployed ROCKS cluster with additional file servers (in addition to  
the front-end), customized node names, and two cluster private  
networks (instead of just one) connecting all nodes for more data- 
intensive computing applications.  One thing I have NOT figured out  
is the limitation of having one front-end, which is a single source  
of failure for accessing the cluster.


Steven



On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Tom Brown wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am after a solution where i can easily kickstart many, read  
> hundreds, of boxes in a short time frame. Perhaps the way i install  
> software is to actually re-kix the box with a new software baseline  
> - that type of idea.
>
> I have looked at rocks and it looks good but it seems a little  
> rigid in that i need to be able to determine certain things like  
> hostname etc as in our env hostname represents box location etc.
>
> Are there any tools out there that do things as 'easily' as rocks  
> but with more customization in them? Rocks seems to be based on  
> beowulf type clusters where our setup is more an application type  
> affair where communication it between the apps and not through the  
> master box.
>
> thanks for any pointers
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos