On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Martin Pool <m...@sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> 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 > Looks like someone already had this idea and did it long ago... http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/2004q4/002774.html Oh well... Thanks for the info. _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache