PS: BTW, I think that you should change mailman settings so Reply reply to the list, not to the sender only.
My thoughts is that distcc should be kept simple.So the question is whether the marginal cost of doing our own digest is so great as to make it worth varying the protocol and code path depending on whether ssh is used or not. I'd prefer simplicity unless there's a measurable difference.
SSH overhead is *enormous* compared to simple checksumming!
It should be 1% overhead, not much. Opening an SSH channel means:
- Validating server with public Crypto
- Validating client with public Crypto
- Authenticating client user with public Crypto
- Exchanging private keys
- Crypto of all data
That is *a lot* of work!
I think that checksum should always be done, while compression should be optional.
When running with SSH transport, we could be able to use SSH own compression or not (by a DISTCC_SSH_OPTIONS for example) or distcc own compression (which should be faster since SSH one is gzip based)
Yes, for RSH, Checksum+Compression options would be cool and useful.There might be some value in using an integrity check even for tunnelled connections. For example, I know some people use rsh (which doesn't have a md) for speed inside clusters, and they might want to use distcc. There have been ssh bugs that caused streamed connections to get corrupted, though I think not recently.
-jec
_______________________________________________
distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/
To unsubscribe/change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
