On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 19:47, Martin Pool wrote: > Last time I looked at fsh, it was written in Python. Much as I love > Python, I think starting it for every connection may be infeasibly > expensive. I haven't measured it though, so I wouldn't write it off.
Just did a quick benchmark on python (not fsh). The python interpreter takes on average 69ms to start on my Celeron 600MHz. My XP 2000+ can do it in just 20ms, which is less than the usual latency for sending a packet over the Internet. The cost of python may be too great for running over a LAN, but for the Internet it's perfect. Actually, without support for this distcc shouldn't even be run over the Internet, so this is enabling a whole new way of using distcc. Also, you wouldn't really be adding fsh support, but just support for any rsh compatible program, including any future fsh-style program that may be written in C. And even plain rsh can be (a bit) more secure than what distcc does now. Another reason fsh support would be nice is that it would enable compression, because ssh supports that. Lack of compression is another reason why distcc can't be used over the Internet today (at least by normal people like me who don't have 10Mbit pipes). > Using fsh would be nicer (lazier) than writing custom > connection-caching code. If you do decide to write custom connection-caching code some day, you could just code it to be rsh-compatible, which would make it useful for everyone who uses fsh today, and it'll make distcc less bloated (as you advocate yourself in your docs about why you don't merge with ccache). /Jonas Jensen _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
