Diskless Nodes
I'm interested in possibly delving into getting a little folding farm set up at the house. I've browsed around quite a bit and have seen setups with diskless nodes using linux. I'm linux illiterate for the most part (although I've installed it before for tinkering purposes but found little use for it due to limited app support) and was wondering if anyone has come across anything about a diskless node farm in a win2k environment. If push comes to shove I could always use hard drives with each mobo/cpu but for energy conservation and even simplicity I would at least like to explore the option of going diskless with win. Everything I have come across so far with diskless has involved linux and a bit of programming. I have no stomach whatsoever for programming. If anyone has come across this, please send it my way so I can plan better. Thanks in advance.
KingFish
KingFish
0
Comments
Bascily, the way Linux can do this is to have a virtual drive. Win2K can use RAMdrives, but those normally are limited in size and Win2K has a minimum workspace need that is larger than what you need for folding.
I would not recommend folding on a box without a HD, unless you expect mostly Tinkers on your diskless boxes or use Linux and have a robust virtual drivemap set up. Even then, storage effectiveness would be limited to the network piping throughput and bandwidth available to send and recive data to be stored and fetching data from your server.
Now, in theory you can fold with minimum storage space if you give the box losts of RAM and use Live CDs to boot and to operate headless Linux nodes and run the folding client in console mode (which is how my P4 folds). Linux is happier with smaller Hds than Win2K would be, as Linux can use much more RAM than Win2K and use larger parts of it for virtual drives in RAM. But it is best for both O\Ss as to HD storage to have some of it on each node-- need not be lots, for Linux an 8 GB HD is plenty if you stick to console for lots of things and run Gnome and not KDE. With an 8 GB Hd per box, one node could be a mail server and fold, some could just fold if you can accept a minimal GUI or no GUI on each box.
Folding for Linux does not have a graphical client like is available for Windows. The client folds in a simple console (looks like a dos environment on the surface) adn has the privileges you give it as to what user you run it under. My linux box folds the WUs while run as root session in console. It is mature enough that it would be hard to break it unless you sat down and vnc'd to your headless linux console and closed the client down.
Actually, in Linux, once you learn some file system maint basics, things are more stable in Linux console for large file and large RAM block use, than in Windows. What is less RAM efficeitn in Linux is GUIs, but the KDE GUI and Win2K's GUI pull about the same machine load.
rm is used where you would use del, mv where you would rename. Linux likes an explicit delete and and a rename is done by MOVING a file to one of a different name in same directory if that is all you want. I could walk you through setting the client up, quite simple.
But if you know Win2K better, you might want to set up all but on headless as Win2K, then play with one Linux headless in console, set up a client there, and fold with both and see what you think. Client 4 is available in verisons for both, looks about the same from Win2K CMD session viewpoint and a linuc console viewpoint as far as what you see, and folds close to same speed if you were to use same hardware set on both-- except that linux will dedicate more RAM to folding on demand of client than Win2K will let it have if both machines are also under same load adn have same number of base processes running. With Win2K you have GUI processes running, with Linux there is NO need to in order to fold, so about half the RAM compared to what Win2K would want is enough to fold in Linux. Console linux can be very compact.
But processor speed and FSB speed and RAM speed still rules for folding, in both. I run a gig of RAM on Linux box, and only apps that are more costly in Linux are getting game support for games not ported to Linux, setting up accounting functions, and learning linux. Linux can be more hands-on until you leanr how to script right, but modern Linux is very close to ready for desktop use in many areas. OpenOffice.org 1.1 with Sun Java support can be run in both environments and is almost key-perfect in how close it is to running the same in both environments. I run a Sun Java 143_02 base on both XP and Linux, for several apps that take advantage of that. Sun Java does not use or need Active-X and Opera browses without it.
With an 8 GB HD, you could run Linux and Gnome and do basic thngs and fold. Heavy DB use would want more storage, but folding does not need much. Linux will take a 90% RAM and 100% processor load 24\7 and be happy if that is wanted, and not swap to HD normally while doing so. So, HD yes, but not as big a one is needed unless your Linux box cannot talk to the world itself and turn in WUs as well as get WUs. Linux is modular enough that you can not run a lot of what Win2K runs at default for what you say you want to do, and modern kernels are surprisingly secure. Since it is more modular, expect more fine pin-point-accurate patches with Linux. But it cannot get Windows virus infected.
Look and see what you have in the way of old HDs still in good shape, if a few smaller ones, try Linux on boxes with smaller HDs-- I would actually say a 2 GB minimum if you want to run console only, as you can install Linux with no GUI at all if you want. Folding can run console-only in Linux. Folding works a lot in RAM if the O\S does not need to pend it by swapping to HD and instead gives it limited time slices and keeps it in RAM. My linux install only swaps to HD when it is strapped for RAM, like less than 20 MEG available and processes want RAM. Then it swaps out what has not run longest(what has slept longest) but has been loaded. IF you load only what you need, 512 MB is plenty of RAM for a linux box.
John D-- who is basicly saying that the only advantage of Linux is it takes less resources for itself then Win2K for what you need for folding and even for Linux plus GUI if you avoid KDE. So, more for folding or whatever major use you want to put the box to.
There have been articles about setups where people are booting in linux off of an external drive, no HDD, no CD.
Two options, either use a bunch of small HDDs (one of my w2k boxes has a 3.2G)
or, learn linux
Try following the Yattamonster instructions.
I think after it's all said and done I'll probably go with disk nodes instead of diskless ones. I am intimately more familiar with windows and can troubleshoot OS problems with ease. I last messed with linux with mandrake 7.0. I simply don't have the time to learn a new OS at the moment. I can't wait until linux really hits the mainstream. From what I understand linux is about ready to make that leap. I've been checking ebay and have found small older hard drives that are next to nothing to buy so cost isn't that much of a factor. They also draw minimal amounts of power. To save time in the long run I'll make a windows image with all the latest updates on a hard drive so I can duplicate them without having to go through ten whole OS installs.
I plan on scoping deals on ebay extensively. Right now I have some ram up in the attic that I missed when cleaning it out for SMx parts. I have one psu up there too. I have to clean an area out here in my home office. I need to fashion some type of rack that will provide airflow (basically will be all open) yet shield some of the noise. I'm not going to use cases because I don't want to take the time with mounting motherboards.
mmonnin, I've never done a network boot with win2k/winxp. How would it be done, what are the limitations, etc? It may be an option I can explore. I currently have three desktops and a laptop. My gaming rig has four hard drives, two of them in raid 0 and the other two are large ones with quite a bit of space. I could use that for a netboot if possible. I also have a spare 120 GB HD and a 80 GB HD sitting on the shelf waiting to be used that could be tapped if needed. I've looked through the F@H forums as well as forums for other teams. If they are using diskless nodes, they are all using linux. I haven't come across any documentation using windows diskless nodes. But as I stated above, I don't think using hard drives is a big obstacle at all. Small ones are dirt cheap on ebay and the power consumption is negligible. I'm familiar with the console version, I've installed it on a couple of boxes as a service with no trouble.
I'm about to get started with gathering parts and trying to figure out what type of rack/mount I'll use. If anyone comes across any links that would be helpful, let me know. It seems that I've crisscrossed the net to just about everywhere so far. Thanks everyone.
KingFish
:banghead:
Have you thought about just buying new stuff? I know cost was a concern, but I was futzing around with this on newegg the other day, because I was curious, and you could have each system running for like $150.
You don't need a case for each one, just put them on a shelf. I'll hop over to newegg and see exactly how much the total was...
N82E16835150023 $9.39
Kingston ValueRAM 184 Pin 128MB DDR PC-2100 - OEM
N82E16820140003 $25.00
BIOSTAR SiS 740 Chipset Motherboard for AMD Socket A CPU, Model "M7VKQ PRO" -RETAIL
N82E16813138229 $46.00
Fortron ATX300GU 300W "HiQ Brand" P4 and AMD Ready Power Supply OEM
N82E16817104988 $15.00
AMD Duron 1.8GHz Socket A Processor - OEM
N82E16819104160 $42.00
Subtotal » $137.39
There ya go. $137.39/node. You could go cheaper (you might even be able to get it in under $100- if only just barely) but I have an aversion to using PC Chips motherboards, and the only other decent board with onboard video that's cheaper than the Biostar is an ASRock that takes only SDRAM, which is more expensive than DDR. You could also get a slower CPU, but the price difference is only a few $$.
I'll shop around on ebay and see what I can dig up. It'll add a little twist in a scavenger hunt sort of way. Buying new from newegg does have its advantages though. I could buy all the same stuff and have it sort of standardized. This could help out with troubleshooting issues, i.e., not having to look up motherboard problems specific to ten different motherboards, etc. The warranty issues are better with new too. I'll have to see if the risk of doing business on ebay is worth what cost advantage there is. So far I've been pretty lucky with ebay. I hope that would continue.
KingFish
KingFish
Doing it that way would mean that using dirt-cheap old 3.2GB drives would be easier. Your $10 drive croaks? Slap in another cheapo, ghost your image, and keep on truckin', err...Folding!
The other reason to standardize is so that you can use one disk image for each system. If the mobos are different each will require a seperate install.
KingFish
256 is not needed at all. 2k runs fine with 128. I have several on 64MB of SDRAM actually.
Does the mobo have integrated nic?
KingFish
As for hard drives, start searching surplus places.
RAM on XP: I would go 256. XP itself uses 128mb, just sitting doing nothing. So, I'd say that 256 would be best.
XP can be cut down to have FAH running under 100MB of RAM. Roommate had his running with 109MB with the GUI and there are other things I know he could do to cut down on RAM usage.