Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSDLab Gets New Sponsors, New Projects

Posted by Hemos on from the making-things-better dept.

quakeaddict wrote to us with the news that Open Source Development Lab has gotten two (initial) new projects approved. The first is dedicated to increasing Linux TCP/IP concurrent support from 20,000 to more than 40,000 connections, while the second is focused on scaling Linux to support applications running on 16- and 64-way systems. The wire story is out now with more details.

47 comments

  1. Another fine editing job by Moonwick · · Score: 1

    It's 'sponsors'.

    --
    Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
    1. Re:Another fine editing job by humpmonkey · · Score: 1

      After so many of these, I'm beginning to suspect that Hemos is just trolling now.

      with humpy love,

      --
      with humpy love,
      humpmonkey
  2. Link of interest... by pongo000 · · Score: 2

    Here's another open-source community link that might be of interest.

  3. 64 way systems will be ueful for everyone. by Urban+Existentialist · · Score: 3
    16 and 64 way systems may not seem useful to the average user at the moment, but my guess is that they soon will be, even for the average user. We are already seeing the single cpu model hitting design problems - ever larger caches, ever more complicated in an effort to run faster. I would guess that the future lies with many simple cpu's. When we move to this new paradigm, Linux will be prepared thanks to its presence in the high end market. I therefore support this research.

    You know exactly what to do-
    Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-

    --

    You know exactly what to do-
    Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
    I think of little else but you.

    1. Re:64 way systems will be ueful for everyone. by TandyMasterControl · · Score: 1
      16 and 64 way systems may not seem useful to the average user at the moment, but my guess is that they soon will be, even for the average user Well I'd settle for a 4 or 8 way system but you know how X86 cpus have gotten larger even as traces have shrunk. They're big and and take a lots of power and generate loads of heat. The size of the case and fan noise we're all used to --high as it is-- really doesn't allow for multiway SMP as the prevailing standard for client systems, at least not with any CPU that Intel would ever design.

      This could be possible with the PowerPC though.

      --
      Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
    2. Re:64 way systems will be ueful for everyone. by rugger · · Score: 1

      Just what can be done with 64 CPU's that most users cant be done with 1 cpu?

      Most users already have enough cpu power for what they do. Web browsers, word processing, database clients (not servers) and most other software doesn't really get any faster if you throw any more cpu at it. Most computers are used for this function (most computers are in buisnesses) and cannot really benefit from multiple CPU's.

      The areas I can think of at the moment where multiple CPU's can have success are large database servers, enryption cracking, bulk data processing and scientific computing. For these mainframes and super-computers are always going to be needed.

      The only personal computing areas that can be improved with multiple processors are games (maybe) and image/video manipulation (compression, images filters). For these tasks, SIMD instructions generally work better and are cheaper to implement.

      Also programming for 64 cpus is a very challenging task. Only the most parrellel of algorithms can ever hope to see a linear performace increase with increasing CPU count.
      The difficulty of writing parrellel programs by itself will drive up the price of software.

      Also motherboard technology is going to limit what you can do with multiple CPU's. Motherboards need to be cheap, reliable, and run without extreme cooling. Putting many CPU's on one chip will mean requiring a massive bus to the memory to feed the CPU's, reducing reliablity and increacing cost. Putting many CPU's in separate chips on a motherboard requires instead lots of separate buses, a lot of testing to iron out timing problems, and lots of physical space. This will make motherboards supporting 64 CPU's very expensive any way you look at it.

      Finally, CPU technology is far from being fully exploited. The wall has not been reached yet, and probably won't be for at least 10 years. Even if we do reach the wall in 10 years, it doesn't nessesarily mean most general computers will need multiple CPUs. Software will have to evaluate the available CPU power and write for it rather that expecting more CPU will be avaliable to handle more feature. A good example of this is in the console market. Games for consoles usually always limit what they do to what the hardware will allow. Eventually computer software will have to do the same.

      Some people have said for ages that "all" future computers will need multiple CPU's. I now say that the economics of doing it are stupid, and that for most tasks, it isn't nessessary.

      Anyway, EOR (end of rant)

  4. Opensource by 11thangel · · Score: 2

    Opensource programmers seem to be getting treated like the athletes of the geek community. They show their talent, get a sponsor, and continue doing even better than ever. This is a prime example. Opensource programmers than can get sponsors will probably not become rich, like our friend Bill, but they're able to become much more motivated now that normal people are really starting to see what opensource is.

    --

    I am !amused.
  5. fact-bending... by Howie · · Score: 1

    "Sun is allowing third parties to put Linux on SPARCstations and is propagating the Linux-based StarOffice, but it's commitment is hardly emphatic, observers said. "

    StarOffice has been available for Windows and Solaris for quite some time hasn't it? And don't Sun now sell Cobalt (i.e. Linux) products?

    --
    "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
    1. Re:fact-bending... by .sig · · Score: 1

      Well, unles I'm totally confused, I've been using Star Office for quite a while now. It actually came with the Sun Solaris 2.5.8 distribution that I got, with detailed documentation and everything. Maybe it was something else, but I could've sworn it was Start Office.

      --
      -Space for rent
    2. Re:fact-bending... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      *allowing*?

      What authority do they have to either allow or disallow it?

    3. Re:fact-bending... by British · · Score: 2

      That is a good question. Are there renegade open source programmers out there working on projects WITHOUT approval?

    4. Re:fact-bending... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4
      Well, I was the one answering the reporter in this case, I think. And I said that Sun was much closer to Open Source than Microsoft. They have Linux on SPARC and they actually support it on Cobalt Micro systems, and they have freed OpenOffice, although they still have some big hurdles like Java licensing to jump over.

      Of course, you always lose something in translation.

      Certainly Sun would be welcome to participate in OSDL and Linux and Open Source in general.

      Thanks

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:fact-bending... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3
      Another mis-translation. I said that Sun had provided SPARC documentation to Linux developers.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  6. Huh? by update() · · Score: 2

    I don't get this story or the press release. This is a test lab funded by a group of corporations. Who is going to be writing code for these projects -- someone at the test facility or developers at one of the sponsoring companies?

    1. Re:Huh? by technos · · Score: 2

      Look at the OSDL page. Whaddya see? A bunch of names of companies that sell hardware and write code, all interested in getting Linux on their bigger and badder 'Enterprise systems'.

      What they're doing is giving access to these test systems.. The two 'initial projects' are simply projects someone approached them about doing, th which they said "Cool! Here's a login on a couple sixteen way SMP machines. Go for it!"

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  7. perens says ... by ender's_shadow · · Score: 1
    "There is a quid pro quo for open source developers," he said. "They all sort of share equally and get stuff back. If it were perceived that IBM or HP was not giving back as much as it could, developers could feel they've become unpaid employees, but we have steps in place to prevent that."

    What kind of steps is he talking about? i'm no license expert, but where in the gpl is it cited as required that the user of the source has to give back to the author of that source? that seems against the open-source

  8. Supercomputers by .sig · · Score: 1

    Sounds nice, could it be that one day we will all have our own personal super-computer with a "Tux-Inside" sticker? ;-)
    Just tell me where the line forms. Until it becomes feasable for me, though, I'll just have to keep the Sun Blade on my wish list ;-)

    --
    -Space for rent
    1. Re:Supercomputers by autocracy · · Score: 1

      I've got a picture of that right above my monitor here at school, along with a 64-way STARFIRE system, the T3 storage array, and an Expert3D Graphics card. Oh what fun!

      My karma's bigger than yours!

      --
      SIG: HUP
  9. Open Source O'Reilly by copyconstructor · · Score: 1

    I see that Tim O'Reilly is on the board. Yeah, the guy who sells his crappy software for outrageous prices (WebBoard - 1799$/$2999, WebSite Professional - $995) in an explicitly closed-source manner.

    It sure helps the credibility of Enterprise Linux to have backers like that.

    1. Re:Open Source O'Reilly by AugstWest · · Score: 2

      heheheheh.... maybe if the massive scalability is added through his project, WebBoard will be able to handle more than 255 boards.

  10. Re:For whom? by l33t+j03 · · Score: 1
    Of course the OSDL is working on:

    The first OSDL project is a scalability project designed to enhance the Linux operating system to support 16 64-bit processors with near-linear performance improvement. The second project, identified with jabber.org, an open source company, is focused on increasing Linux TCP/IP concurrent connection support from 20,000 to greater than 64,000. Under the lab's charter, all projects were established according to the open source development model. The lab does not create projects; rather, it supports and accelerates existing or new projects developed by the open source community.

    Note that they are talking about 16 64-bit processors, not a 64 way machine.

    --

    Cunning linguists

  11. Well, someone had to say it ... by stepson · · Score: 3

    Only 40k connections? Linux only does 20k connections now? C'mon, we all know FreeBSD 1.2 has supported 150 Million concurrent connections using only my grandma's WebTV ... Oh and don't even get me started about what it'll do after it merges with the BSDi code (Grandma can't wait!)

    Seriously though, has anyone ever ran into that limit on linux? I guess on big heavily loaded servers (/. comes to mind, as does any server that has their link on /.'s front page...) that have the CPU and memory to handle that many connections, it is almost mandatory ...

    1. Re:Well, someone had to say it ... by popular · · Score: 1
      Any one of the servers on a large IRC network is likely to have significantly more than 20k simultaneous connections at any given time.

      I think that this could also fall under the zero, one, infinity rule, which essentially means that software shouldn't have arbitrary limits, like the old MS-DOS 8.3 filename limit.

      --

    2. Re:Well, someone had to say it ... by darksmurf · · Score: 2

      I don't believe it's an issue that Linux doesn't handle that many, I believe it's the Jabber project getting their code to do it and needing a testbed. However, it's possible Linux doesn't handle that many across >4 processors and scale as well as we would like. (must...play...)

      If I remember correctly, Jabber had a call for development help out a little bit ago when they were having trouble getting up to 32k open sockets working with buffers...

      Those limits are going to be blown out of the water with the types of systems we can provide now.

      You just don't provide a 16-processor box with 6-gigabit fiber cards and 16gigs of RAM and multiple terrabytes of storage and not expect it to scale beyond 32k sockets.

      -Nathan (will be happy when I can compile a kernel in 1.2 seconds) Dabney
      Open Source Development Lab

    3. Re:Well, someone had to say it ... by psychos · · Score: 2

      Well actually, you're wrong.

      [] global users.. 61438 max.. 80102 (58085 invisible, 67 operators)
      [] local users... 32351 max.. 38435 (52.7%)

      From twisted.ma.us.dal.net. We've been holding > 25k users on a consistent basis the past few weeks since many other servers are missing. Our record is 38435 simultaneous users.

      Also see the article about us on linux.com.

    4. Re:Well, someone had to say it ... by British · · Score: 1

      Wow think of the DOS attacks you could do with it!

  12. Not hiring developers yet.... by cnkeller · · Score: 1
    Apparently, they are only hiring sys-admins right now. If they weren't located in the middle of the rain soaked NW, I'd consider joining on now as a sys-admin and then moving on to developement once things were stable.It appears as if the plan is to do everything on site. Interesting. I wonder how many people who are used to having their cake and eating too, will react to moving to Portland for what sounds to be a way cool job.

    Anyone know what their time frame is for actually getting development started?

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    1. Re:Not hiring developers yet.... by darksmurf · · Score: 5

      Correct, only sysadmin postitions for the time being.

      We actualy plan to do as much as possible via remote/ssh but there is a definite need to have the people be local because of the amount of hardware adjustments we anticipate.

      For the most part, OS install and refresh will be automated (give us time, we just opened;)

      The build boxes (kernel compile on these boxes is fun) are ready for the developers. So the only thing we are waiting on as of today is for the projects that have been approved to say: "ok, we are ready, can we have our login access now?"

      -Nathan
      Open Source Development Lab

    2. Re:Not hiring developers yet.... by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Will there be a need for developers at all? That would be cool (I'm posting from Beaverton!), but my understanding is that this is mainly a testing lab.

    3. Re:Not hiring developers yet.... by baboon · · Score: 1
      If they weren't located in the middle of the rain soaked NW, ...

      Normally I don't like to let the secret out, but I'd rather have Linux sysads move in than lawyers or such. If you're not a Linux fan, read no further.

      NW Oregon is utopia. There are not four seasons, but two. Nov-Mar it rains, constantly. You live with it. But, the summer is sunny every day. You save up the water during the winter so you don't get the draughts. The annual temperature varies from about 50 to 85 (of course there are occasional exceptions). Portland has the best downtowm I've seen including movie theaters with beer.

      http://www.munra.com/baboon/portland.html

      Beaverton, Oregon

    4. Re:Not hiring developers yet.... by darksmurf · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the late reply.

      There will eventualy be a need for developers.

      We are currently discussing ways to allow outside developers to assist with the projects that are in dire need of performance analysis.

      As far as actual job positions go, I suggest checking the job board every so often ;)

      -Nathan (also posting from Beaverton;)
      Open Source Development Lab

  13. Steps that IBM is taking... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 5

    Corporate Policy. For example, IBM could develop an extended version of Linux and not give it to the community. If they were to extend Linux, and include the source with the software, then there is no need to provide source code to third parties. IBM could include it with their big iron, and someone would have to buy one of the machines to distribute the code under the GPL.

    IBM is making it their corporate policy to be good citizens, those are the steps.

    Also, keep in mind the difference between open source and Free Software. The GPL guarantees Free Software, respecting the rights of the users enumerated in the GPL. Open Source is a different animal. Open Source are collaborative projects that many people can submit patches to, that is a different animal. The GNU project is not an open source project, the FSF owns all the copyrights and only accepts patches that are signed over.

    Remember what people mean when they say open source on Slashdot, it isn't merely enough to sell stuff under the GPL, to /. open source means downloadable from the corporate site (with ISO if a distribution), a web site with development information, CVS, etc., etc., etc.

    1. Re:Steps that IBM is taking... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3

      But it only takes one rebel to post the source publically, so I doubt IBM would be that dense. The only real threat would be proprietary libraries, well marketed e.g. Win32 on Linux.

    2. Re:Steps that IBM is taking... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
      Yes, corporate policy to be good citizens of the Free Software community. The corporate policy most important for this press release is that OSDL only works on projects that have licensing compliant with the Open Source Definition, and it accepts projects from the community on a first-come first-served basis. There is, of course, some justification that one has to do to get the lab director to accept a project, I don't know if he'd want to test your IRC-bot :-) .

      Thanks

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
  14. RUN A SPELL CHECKER!!! by laxian · · Score: 1
    I can't believe how many spelling errors the staff makes on a regular basis!!! Many times they don't even correct them.

    If you higher-ups are reading this, PLEASE run a spell checker with a spell checker program on the front page. I've counted at least three errors today. You should all be ashamed of yourselves! How are people supposed to take the information on this site seriously? Believe it or not, proper spelling and grammar matters!!!

    -Christian

    --

    our written thoughts are gifts to our future selves

    1. Re:RUN A SPELL CHECKER!!! by peter+hoffman · · Score: 1

      <humor>
      Isn't a spell checker for making sure that your incantation to raise the dead is going to work and it's a spelling checker that makes sure that you don't have typos?
      </humor>


      OpenSourcerers
  15. The Brits by HongPong · · Score: 2
    OSDLab Gets New Sponsers, New Projects

    Is that the British spelling?

    --
    --hongpong.com
  16. Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by Zico · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better termed the "Linux Development Lab," seeing as, from this article, they're only interested in Linux? Not to mention that they have a penguin for a logo.

    So at what point did the open source crowd, which has been around a lot longer than Linux, decide to allow the Linux advocates to co-opt the term "open source" for themselves, to promulgate the very idea that "Open Source == Linux"? Seems kinda sad.


    Cheers,

    1. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      So at what point did the open source crowd, which has been around a lot longer than Linux

      No it hasn't, at least not in widespread use.

      Note that Stallman's FSF is the Free Software Foundation, not the Open Source Foundation. Open Source as the buzzword has really only been around for ~4 years, whereas Linux will soon hit its 10th birthday.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by update() · · Score: 1
      So at what point did the open source crowd, which has been around a lot longer than Linux, decide to allow the Linux advocates to co-opt the term "open source" for themselves, to promulgate the very idea that "Open Source == Linux"?

      Linux was around for years before Eric Raymond coined (or at least popularized and trademarked) "Open Source." Actually, the "Open Source Movement" and their "Free Software" counterparts both retroactively lay claim to all sorts of software (Linux, Perl, Apache, BSD...) whose creation had nothing to do with them.

    3. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by darksmurf · · Score: 1

      That's a religious discussion you don't want to start. The Open Source movement is not older than Linux, the Free Software one is.

      As far as the logo goes, there is a (good/reasonable) story behind it. However, since I have only heard it third-hand, I am not quite comfortable trying to quote it here.

      The point of the lab isn't to fill every little niche out there, it's to provide a development environment for open cource projects looking to develop their enterprise capabilities.

      Example: We are going to work with Jabber as one of the initial projects, last I checked that was not penguin, or Linux specific...

      -Nathan
      Open Source Development Lab

    4. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by Zico · · Score: 1

      My main problem is that seems like a case where a Linux group is using the broad name of "open source," and all that it encompasses in people's minds (which besides Linux includes major things like Apache, FreeBSD, Python, and Perl), and trying to funnel that broader interest to work only for Linux's benefit instead of for the overall interest of promoting open source. It's slightly similar to the annoyance I feel when Richard Stallman tries to co-opt Linux's success by insisting on the whole GNU/Linux thing. If you're really working for the open source thing as a whole, then more power to you. You really should come up with a non-penguin logo, though.


      Cheers,

    5. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by darksmurf · · Score: 1

      I will mention the non-penguin logo to the lab director when he gets back in. That seems to be a spot some people have difficulties with.

      I can see what you are saying about the use of "open source". I also agree with the part about RMS and the GNU/Linux bit.

      Personally I think Linux, Python, Perl, Apache and such are all in the same boat. They depend so much on each others success that putting them under the same banner of Open Source can only help things.

      Of course, these are my opinions and have /nothing/ to do with my employer ;)

      -Nathan
      Open Source Development Lab

    6. Re:Why is it called "Open Source" Development Lab? by Zico · · Score: 1

      Uh, maybe because I actually use all the open source tools that I mentioned to him, except for Apache, and including AOLServer, Postgres, MySQL, PHP and others? The reason why I'd rather not see the term "open source" become synonymous with Linux is because whiny little zealots like you have already sullied the name of respectable Linux users everywhere. I'd rather not see you drag the rest of the open source tools down into the gutter with you.

      Oh yeah, and do you really think that darksmurf felt like he was being "harrassed?" I doubt it. Go save someone who needs it.


      Cheers,

  17. Re:For whom? by darksmurf · · Score: 1

    To start with, yes.

    SMP scalability does not start at 2-processors and jump to 64. It's generally good to test multiple steps along the way.

    OS scalability is also not a processor only issue. Clusters, disk IO, large memory support, high network bandwith, high connection rates/counts... This lab is just presenting the Open Source development community with the chance to take the next step towards enterprise scalability.

    Give us time, we just opened ;)

    -Nathan
    Open Source Development Lab

  18. Thats 64,000 not 40,000 by PxT · · Score: 1


    Think 40,000 TCP/IP connections isn't enough? The max number is actually going to be boosted above 64,000! Sweet...

  19. Invoice by squiggleslash · · Score: 3
    Work completed:

    1. Opened "kernel_tcpip.c" in 'vi'
    2. Cursored down to line #define MAX_CONNECTIONS 20000
    3. Changed 2 to a 4
    4. Saved, quit vi, seemed to work
    Time taken, 1 minute. Please pay at usual hourly rate to usual account. Ta muchly.
    --
    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.