Re: IoT OS

On 22/01/2016 2:08 AM, Mathieu Prevot wrote:
> 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 ?

This is still very hard to understand.
Are you planning to work with some API that is described in a document 
somewhere?
if so please give links.

>
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>