rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 66 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/mach_federations.mdwn b/open_issues/mach_federations.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 50c939c3..00000000
--- a/open_issues/mach_federations.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2012-08-18
-
-    <braunr> well replacing parts of it is possible on the hurd, but for core
-      servers it's limited
-    <braunr> minix has features for that
-    <braunr> this was interesting too:
-      http://static.usenix.org/event/osdi08/tech/full_papers/david/david_html/
-    <braunr> lcc: you'll always have some kind of dependency problems which are
-      hard to solve
-    <savask> braunr: One my friend asked me if it's possible to run different
-      parts of Hurd on different computers and make a cluster therefore. So, is
-      it, at least theoretically?
-    <braunr> savask: no
-    <savask> Okay, then I guessed a right answer.
-    <youpi> well, theorically it's possible, but it's not implemented
-    <braunr> well it's possible everywhere :p
-    <braunr> there are projects for that on linux
-    <braunr> but it requires serious changes in both the protocols and servers
-    <braunr> and it depends on the features you want (i assume here you want
-      e.g. process checkpointing so they can be migrated to other machines to
-      transparently balance loads)
-    <lcc> is it even theoretically possible to have a system in which core
-      servers can be modified while the system is running? hm... I will look
-      more into it. just curious.
-    <savask> lcc: Linux can be updated on the fly, without rebooting.
-    <braunr> lcc: to some degree, it is
-    <braunr> savask: the whole kernel is rebooted actually
-    <braunr> well not rebooted, but restarted
-    <braunr> there is a project that provides kernel updates through binary
-      patches
-    <braunr> ksplice
-    <savask> braunr: But it will look like everything continued running.
-    <braunr> as long as the new code expects the same data structures and other
-      implications, yes
-    <braunr> "Ksplice can handle many security updates but not changes to data
-      structures"
-    <braunr> obviously
-    <braunr> so it's good for small changes
-    <braunr> and ksplice is very specific, it's intended for security updates,
-      ad the primary users are telecommunication providers who don't want
-      downtime
-    <antrik> braunr: well, protocols and servers on Mach-based systems should
-      be ready for federations... although some Hurd protocols are not clean
-      for federations with heterogenous architectures, at least on homogenous
-      clusters it should actually work with only some extra bootstrapping code,
-      if the support existed in our Mach variant...
-    <braunr> antrik: why do you want the support in the kernel ?
-    <antrik> braunr: I didn't say I *want* federation support in the
-      kernel... in fact I agree with Shapiro that it's probably a bad idea. I
-      just said that it *should* actually work with the system design as it is
-      now :-)
-    <antrik> braunr: yes, I said that it wouldn't work on heterogenous
-      federations. if all machines use the same architecture it should work.