Hi all,
Since I'm being discussed, I thought that I should chime in :).
I agree that what we're talking about here is just a couple of steps in
the right general direction, not where we would really like to be in the
long run.
The zero-conf concept sounds great to me, conceptually. However, I don't
want to have an implementation of that that forces us into a dependence
on a particular server for startup. More discussion might change my
mind? I dunno.
Server-to-server (s2s) seems like the right way to do the config file
verification in the long term. However, the code we're going to use to
do that is just now shaping up. So we're not quite ready to do that yet.
So, I proposed (off-line) that we do this interim thing for now (which
cleans things up quite a bit) and continue thinking and talking about
how we might like the system to work in the longer term.
Regards,
Rob
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hi pete,
I thought with your discussion of getconfig/putconfig that you were
implicitly planning to get server-to-server communication to work
too.
I was planning on doing that. But it fizzled out because of RobR's concern
about scalability and dependence on a single root server..
What you describe here sounds like fine stuff. And if later
somebody gets ambitious and wants to do more "zeroconf"-ish work,
they can build on this. Thanks for the explanations.
Yep. Exactly. I hope so too :)
thanks!
Murali
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
