becker at scyld.com
Fri Jul 31 13:34:05 PDT 2009
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Marian Marinov wrote:
> Hello list,
> do you know if this project is still alive ? Or replaced/renamed ?
That's actually a long-dead branch of BProc. Even when it was current, it
had significant flaws, frequently changed interfaces, and never worked
reliably with x86_64 clusters.
It was started by a former employee who made a complete copy of our
internal development servers to his home machine in the hours before he
quit without notice, and then used the unpublished development tree and
build system to compete against us.
He used the justification that we released almost all of our production
code under Open Sources licenses soon after releasing our commercial
product. While this was a self-serving rationalization on his part, it
was the major reason that we stopped doing open publication of our source
code as soon as the commercial version was released.
Alas, that means you won't be able to download the current BProc from a
public web page. Nor many of the other innovative tools that we developed
and used to publish. Now most of published contributions are part of
Of course we continue use and improve BProc. Or more accurately a BProc
kernel interface, as the code has been re-written several times to match
newer kernels and add features. Over time we have made it more scalable,
and have added features such as multiple and fail-over masters. Our
customers still have access to the current source code, but over several
web site re-writes even the old web pages for BProc (as well as our other
innovative subsystems) have been moved and become unreachable.
I really, really wish the situation were different. The people that have
worked on BProc in the past nine year since have done a great job in
keeping it working in the face of kernel re-writes, using new kernel
facilities to simplify its code, and making it reliable with large-scale
installations. All while keeping the interface the same so that the
much larger infrastructure around it would continue to work. They have
done the hard work, even while much more attention and money was spent
on LANL's failed-and-abandoned attempt to build clusters around the stolen
To end on a positive and technical note, while BProc was a cornerstone in
our efficient, single-system-image cluster system, it's not the only way
to do things. You can get many of its benefits by without
BProc is based around directed process migration -- a more efficient
technique than the common transparent process migration. You can do many
cool things with process migration, but with experience we found that the
costly parts weren't really the valuable ones. What you really want is
the guarantee that running a program *over there* returns the expected
results -- the same results as running it *here*. That means more than
knowing the command line. You want the same executable, linked with
exactly the same library versions in the same order, with the same
environment and parameters.
You can get that consistency without implementing transparent migration.
And if you are willing to give up single-process-space monitoring and
control, without even doing migration and thus being dependent on kernel
features. You just need to send the right information when you start a
remote job. That means finding the current executable on the host system,
looking at the link information (essentially running 'ldd' but
occasionally doing a partial link) to find the initial libraries, and
making sure that those exact versions are installed or cached on the
remote system. When you start up the process on the remote system, using
the copied environment and command line, you get most of the consistency
that BProc offers.
People often give "BProc" the credit for light-weight, quick-booting
nodes. In reality BProc has little to do with that -- it's role is only
process creation, monitoring and control. The real innovation was the
ability to dynamically cache, and update when needed, just the elements
needed to run a process. (You also need services such as BeoNSS and
access to a reference master... the devil is in the details.) That lets
you start with almost nothing and incrementally build an environment to
support the programs that are to be run. As you can extrapolate from
above, "a cornerstone" doesn't mean "the only way to do it".
There is much more I could write about benefits, trade-offs, and
implementation details. Is there a specific area that you wanted to know
Donald Becker becker at scyld.com
Penguin Computing / Scyld Software
Annapolis MD and San Francisco CA
More information about the Beowulf