On 22 June 2010 15:36, Reuben Hawkins <reuben...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Martin Pool <m...@sourcefrog.net> wrote: >> >> On 22 June 2010 11:42, Reuben Hawkins <reuben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 06/21/2010 06:06 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> >> On 22 June 2010 10:18, Reuben Hawkins <reuben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Martin, >> >>> >> >>> Yes, there would need to be a daemon to respond to multicasts. I >> >>> think >> >>> distcc requires setting all the hosts manually on each client (correct >> >>> me if >> >>> I'm wrong). Maybe what I need is distcc servers to respond to >> >>> multicast so >> >>> I can avoid maintaining the servers manually on the clients... I see >> >>> you're >> >>> one of the distcc developers. Would that be a welcome enhancement? >> >>> >> >> Using multicast would probably still require some configuration on the >> >> clients about which multicast group to use, etc. Is there anything >> >> wrong with using mdns? >> >> >> >> >> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding exactly what you're suggesting. There's >> > nothing wrong with using mdns, but my understanding is that even with >> > mdns, the names must still be known by the client. For example... >> > >> > $ distcc-config --set-hosts "localhost c1.local c2.local c3.local ... >> > cN.local" >> > >> > What I'd like to be able to do is... >> > >> > $ distcc-config --multicast >> > >> > So when distcc starts a build, it will call out to the local network, >> > "who's running distccd?" and the servers will reply such that my local >> > machine can automatically update its list of hosts. >> >> mdns has a mechanism to say "who offers this service?" Apple's distcc >> version in Xcode does this. I don't know how well that works on >> generic unix but it seems like a good place to start, and the distcc >> list would be a good place to ask about it. >> >> > RFC 3307 suggest that permanent IPv6 multicast addresses can be assigned >> > (which I haven't really looked into yet, I was just going to pick one at >> > random for now). I was not planning on using IPv4 at all. >> > >> > Is that reasonable or am I missing something? >> >> I don't think it would be reasonable to have one IPv6 address that is >> "the global ccache service for the whole world." If the address is >> intended to be just network-wide or organization-wide, then really you >> do have per-machine configuration, you're just choosing to hardcode it >> into the program. >> >> -- >> Martin > > I also agree it's unreasonable to have a whole world multicast address for > distcc. But I'm not suggesting a global multicast address, just a link > local address that doesn't route. Something in the FF02:: scope. I could > use the link local all nodes address FF02::1, but the it would get lots of > unwanted traffic. Hardcoding should be ok even if it is FF02::1 (all link > local nodes) as this is what multicast is for...right?
[please reply on the list] This sounds a lot like a reinvention of mDNS DNS-SD, which provides a generalized way to find a service on the local network by multicast queries. See eg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Rendezvous>. -- Martin _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache