On 29 Apr 2004, Daniel Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's a scheme that does what you're suggesting in a slightly different > way. > > I've been toying with the following idea, which combines load balancing > with fsh-like connection caching. Let's call it lbfsh.
I think that would be pretty handy, even if we end up improving the built in balancer. In particular it would let people shift any old task onto a remote machine, which is a frequently requested feature for distcc. So it means just "run this somewhere, I don't care where", kind of like some cluster tools. > One scenario would be: running "lbfshd $SHELL" would start a > local server listening on a local-only socket, put that > socket's url in the environment as LBFSH_URL, and run a shell; > when the shell exited, the local server would exit. The > command "lbfsh host cmd ..." would ignore the host argument, > connect to $LBFSH_URL, then execute cmd ... by passing it to > the local server rather like fsh does, except that the local > server would pick the remote server to send it to. To use this > with distcc, you'd set DISTCC_RSH to 'lbfsh', and set > DISTCC_HOSTS to anything at all; lbfsh would ignore the host > argument. I think you could make it a bit more automatic. Hardcode the socket to ~/.lbfsh/socket. (Well, maybe have an option to override.) If the client finds there's no daemon listening, it forks one. The daemon could die of boredom after say 5 minutes of inactivity. (Not that idle processes really matter, but some people get antsy about them.) Rather than ignoring the host argument I think you should pass it through to the daemon, which uses it to select a group of hosts. If there is exactly one host, then this works like a faster version of fsh. You might look up the hosts names either from a local configuration or a multi-A DNS record or a Rendezvous group. -- Martin
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc