On 7/31/06, User Freebsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:

> Chris Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
>>> Counting portsnap and cvsup accesses is non-intrusive - i.e. nothing
>>> sent from local host - will count systems from any version of
>>> FreeBSD, but will never count everything because sites with multiple
>>> hosts may easily have local propagation mechanisms.  But you will
>>> get an order of magnitude.  However, how do you deal with systems
>>> with variable IPs?  I don't know enough about the internals of
>>> either portsnap or cvsup to know if there is some kind of unique id
>>> associated with hosts.  If not, then you'd wildly over count for
>>> many home-based, variable IP systems.
>> Maybe not so many, my non-static ip hasn't changed since I signed up 3
>> years ago despite turning off the modem for the odd day or
>> two. Another network I look after also hasn't changed in a year.
> But one can't rely on that.  You'll definitely see more than one ip
> associated with my laptop, if I move it around.
> A more reliable way that I can think of is generating a unique ID
> number when a system finishes installation or upon the first boot.
> However, it may involve some additional privacy problem.  What do you
> think?

How does Solaris generate its 'hostid'?  Is it a hardware/sparc thing, or

Generating a unique anonymous key is easy, proving why we need it is not.

Ok, here it is, " ifconfig | sha256 | md5 ". 16^32 unique anonymous
keys. Every host needs to have a NIC to send results so all ifconfig
outputs will be different. Now... What does this solve and why do we
need to add 32 extra bytes?

(20 + 32) bytes * (10^7) = 495.910645 megabytes. The FreeBSD team
would need a 6.6Mbit/s uplink to handle peak load assuming 50% of the
hosts are set to UTC/GMT time and all trigger within 5 minutes of each
other.... I'm not going to pay for that connection.

BSD Podcasts @:
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to