Title: Re: si_monitor & flamethrower
Hi Andrea:
 
So would BitTorrent transport require that rsyncd be on as well?
 
Regarding the server side BT - wouldn't that conflict if the user decides to install a separate BitTorrent RPM which provides those binaries?  Perhaps we should prefix the filenames with "si_"?
 
Cheers,
 
Bernard


From: Andrea Righi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 16/04/2006 14:38
To: Bernard Li
Cc: sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: si_monitor & flamethrower

Bernard Li wrote:
> That's interesting...  I didn't know that systemimager-server-rsyncd
> is needed by flamethrower - can this be fixed?
>
> I think flamethrower itself should be self-contained and do not need
> rsyncd to be enabled on the server...

we need a way with flamethrower to get the size of the image... I don't
know if there's a way to do that "on the fly" as with rsync... I like
this approach because it's really fast and it can evaluate the right
size of the image dynamically (also if you add or remove files from it).

>
> And no, I do not get any error using rsync.
>
> I was also wondering if you know anything about netbootmond - I
> noticed that when I use flamethrower, it does not automatically
> change to localboot after successful image whereas it works fine with
> rsync.  If you know anything about it I'd appreciate a fix, otherwise
> I could probably look into it...

because it uses rsync too...

>
> BTW, for BT does it matter which version of BitTorrent I have
> installed on the image_server?  And should I add a dependency for
> that in the spec file?
>
the server side of bittorrent it's all installed via `make
install_server_all`... Anyway with the RPMs I think we should explicitly
add the bittorrent binaries in the spec file. The required files are the
following:

/usr/bin/bittorrent-tracker
/usr/bin/maketorrent-console
/usr/bin/launchmany-console
/usr/bin/launchmany-curses

Cheers,
-Andrea

Reply via email to