'distributed' vs 'clusterable'

[Mike Grim]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
:
:First, congratulations on 1.2 - I look forward to playing with it.
:
:The second this is in the release notes, it is stated that, "... for our
:ultimate goal of creating a clusterable OS.".
:
:In this context, is 'clusterable' the same as 'distributed' OS?  I read
:them differently, i.e., clusterable doesn't exactly imply a single
:system image.  Forgive me if there has been a refining of goals, but I
:was just curious.  Thanks!
:
:Brett
    The goal is SSI, or at least SSI from the point of view of userland.
    The kernel images would not necessarily have to be exactly the same
    but I won't know what all the issues are going to be until I actually
    get far enough along in the process migration and cache coherency
    protocols for them to become more apparent.
					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Just a question, but why migrate processes at all?  Or do you mean you 
will migrate a process' data and metadata (PID, group, environment, etc) 
and start another process on the remote machine that "absorbs" this data?

I'm just wondering, because I'm assuming since all the software on all 
the DFly systems would have to be the same anyway to be part of the SSI 
cluster, it wouldn't make much sense to actually send the entire process 
itself to another machine (just it's data and metadata).  It's just 
something you can leave out.

--Mike