On 27 Apr 2004, Daniel Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that's needed. In fact, it's probably better if > the local server is connected to via a unix domain socket. > That's slightly faster and more secure. > Also, it lets us do tricky things like passing an open > socket from the local server to the distcc program, > so the bytes don't have to get relayed through the local server.
I would slightly lean against that because it would not work on Windows. I don't personally use Windows very often and supporting every feature of distcc there is not absolutely critical but I wouldn't break it lightly. I would be surprised if there was a significant speed difference between AF_UNIX and AF_INET at the rate of connections we're talking about here. > (I've been waiting ten years for a reason to use fd passing!) Me too :-) but I think this is not the place. (I already got to use sendfile, TCP_CORK and deferaccept in distcc so I'm pretty satiated on obscure Linux features.) > It even lets us pass credentials, so the local server could > even know for sure which unix user was making the request; > that could come in handy if we want to restrict status info > about jobs to the user who submitted the jobs. Or you could just chmod the (directory containing the) socket. -- Martin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
