Re: IoT OS

2016-01-21 17:38 GMT+01:00 NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya_at_gmail.com>:

>
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 08:34, Jan Bramkamp <crest_at_rlwinm.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/01/16 17:19, Mathieu Prevot wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I would like to connect several connected object (with homogeneous or
> >> heterogenous hardare: intel edison,  samsung artik, apple AX, intel
> core,
> >> etc) so the calculation needs, the storage/memory, the connection, etc
> are
> >> decoupled; hence we can reach an ecosystem with several clouds.
> >>
> >> How do you recommend to reach that ? from the kernel, a module, or
> >> eventually a software ?
> >
> > Your message contains neither enough information nor a precise enough
> question for anyone to provide you a helpful answer.
> >
> > Please describe your problem in sufficient detail and reformulate your
> question. If you still think these mailing lists (current_at_ and hackers_at_)
> are a good audience for your question afterward ask them again.
>
> It depends on your workload and hardware requirements (there isn't a
> simple answer to your question because you didn't describe what you needed
> with concrete requirements).
>
> I would talk to cem_at_. He's working on ioat(4) on head for us ($work).
> Thanks,
> -NGie
>

Say all objects are connected peer to peer with wifi, some of them are
connected to internet through gsm network or wifi to a box. These object
are moving in space, and for some reasons, connections are dynamical and
can be severely impaired or lost.

They have incoming local streams of data (eg HD videos, accelerometer, GPS,
other wifi and gsm signals, etc).

I would like to abstract the CPU layer, storage layer, and internet
connection so that in realtime results of one of my objects are saved if
this object dies, so that if one of the object giving internet access to
the group loose its connection, the redundancy allows the group of object
not to lose internet connection.

Can I consider these as different load balancing layers ? Do you recommend
to implement this at the kernel layer or at an API layer ? Can I see that
as a lightweight cluster ?

I think the API is more flexible, especially if I have an heterogeneous (by
CPU, OS) set of connected object. However, working at the kernel level
allows existing programs not to be rewritten. What are your thoughts ?

Do you recommend another list ?

Thanks