Kevin Stallard wrote:
What would I do with PVM?
With PVM you would simply solve your problem in a convenient way
It adds overhead to what QNX already does.
What does QNX/QNET already? Does it allow communication between QNX6
systems with different CPU architectures? Does it allow communication
between QNX4 and QNX6 ??
I want lean and mean. PVM looks like an after-thought for the poor blokes
that have to deal with MS and Linux > > .
No … I see here only a poor ‘bloke’ (?) which have to realize
communication between two QNX6 machines with different architectures )
QSSL didn’t make it an after thought and so it is faster.
PVM communication (after setup of a connection) is based on a lean and
secure UDP protocol. What is the base of QNET?? How could QNET be
BTW … are there implementation of QNET for shared memory systems,
Myrinet, Gigabit Ethernet or other communication media??
And I am not linking different OS’s… I’m a QNX kind
of guy and all my systems (if I have anything to say about it) will and will
always be QNX based…I just wanted to see if I could use a hybrid of
processors and link them via QNET.
Message passing by PVM allows to communicate between different operating
systems (QNX4-QNX6) and between system with different CPU architectures.
Both is until now NOT possible with QNET.
Ok, so there are more issues to the virtual machine concept than is covered
by transparent IPC,
Wrong … there are at first library calls for transparent message
passing and based on it service calls for running the virtual machine.
but I would bet that making all CPU’s resources
transparent across the net is is 70% to 80% of that.
PVM is simply a system independent message passing library … plus
management function for the VM.
I do a pretty good job of managing parallel resources on my own, thank you very much!
Oh … thank you for your reply
Further more, if I can avoid TCP/IP, I will.
So you should not use QNET )
I have what could be classified as an unfounded dislike of TCP/IP, but I dislike it
none-the-less. I’m glad I have it so I can write this note, and post it so
everyone can read. But I’m not going to use it as the main protocol for any
multi CPU embedded system I design/write, unless that embedded system needs
to talk across networks.
So PVM isn’t the answer…and thus my question remains.
“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
Kevin Stallard wrote:
I am under the impression that QNET isn’t currently able to speak to QNX
nodes that are not of the same endianness.
PVM supports communication between nodes of different architectures
If this is true, is this going
to change? Seems a flag could be part of a QNET header in some way
indicating what order the data is in and do conversions only if
(unlike TCPIP where all traffic is put in netowrk byte order).
PVM is available at > http://www.sf.net/projects/openqnx