steve@tellab3.UUCP (Steve Harpster) (06/29/84)
Has anybody out there been doing any work on a diskless Unix (i.e., several machines which talk to one file server)? I remember (?) UCB talking about it sometime ago and planning to incorporate this into 4.2. Any information on any diskless Unix would be appreciated. Thanks. -- ...ihnp4!tellab1!steve Steve Harpster Tellabs, Inc.
advisor@utcsstat.UUCP (Milan Strnad) (07/06/84)
When I hear the expression, "Diskless Unix", I immediately think of zero disk drives. If you have enough memory, you can mount your file system(s) onto/into memory, thus avoiding seeks (latency hurts) and read times. No longer need your unix be i/o bound. Of course, if your memory ever gets wiped out (power failure, etc.) you may have a problem. How about bubble memory? Problem is, of course, the inability to address the amount of memory you would need to hold all of your files. So you can have something inbetween, like putting /tmp into memory, or some other similar combo. Any comments? milan strnad (..utcsstat!advisor)
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (07/08/84)
It is not economically feasible to have enough fast memory to do away with bulk slow memory. This tradeoff has existed since the beginning of computing and always will exist, unless memory becomes so good and cheap that it becomes a "free" resource. Diskless systems normally require fast network access to files stored elsewhere (on a "file server" for example). We do put /tmp on a "RAM disk" for speed whenever possible. I have also known installations to do this with /bin.
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/09/84)
#R:tellab3:-16200:ea:13500019:000:968 ea!mwm Jul 8 16:42:00 1984 /***** ea:net.unix-wizar / utcsstat!advisor / 2:32 pm Jul 6, 1984 */ Problem is, of course, the inability to address the amount of memory you would need to hold all of your files. So you can have something inbetween, like putting /tmp into memory, or some other similar combo. Any comments? milan strnad (..utcsstat!advisor) /* ---------- */ No, the problem isn't the address space, it's the cost of the memory! Most people could probably live comfortably with the gigabyte address space on the VAX, if they could afford that much memory (and expansion cabinets, and floor space, and air conditioning, etc.). If that's not enough, you can use a 68012, a 68020, or a 32032 to get more space. Of course, given that much memory, you may not want a file system, but a hierarchical name space on your editor buffers. Move all the commands to swap, and you can get even more space by ripping the file system code out of the kernel. But is it Unix after that? <mike
steve@tellab3.UUCP (Steve Harpster) (07/09/84)
You're right. There ARE zero disks LOCALLY (<- that thar's the keyword). I guess another way of looking at it though is that every machine has the same disks locally. > If you have enough memory you can mount your file system(s) onto/into > memory.... Combining the above ideas, maybe we can develop a central memory server in which case we would have memory-less Unix (forgetful? :-). -- ...ihnp4!tellab1!steve Steve Harpster Tellabs, Inc.