> > i can see in principle how this could be a good idea (no more > > comments, though). could you elaborate, though. i have found > > editing /lib/ndb/local works well at the scales i see. [...] > machines, even with multiple admins. I have a feeling it starts to > break down with thousands of machines, particularly in an environment > where machines are appearing and disappearing at regular intervals > (clouds, HPC partitioning, or Blue Gene). Hundreds of thousands of > nodes with this sort of behavior probably makes it impractical. Of > course -- this won't effect the casual user, but its something that > effects us.
so plunkers like us with a few hundred machines are just "casual users"? i'd hate for plan 9 to become harder to use outside a hpc environment. it would be good to be flexable enough to support fairly degnerate cases like just flat files. > > i also don't know what you mean by "transient, task specific services". > > i can only think of things like ramfs or cdfs. but they live in my > > namespace so ndb doesn't enter into the picture. > > > > There is the relatively mundane configuration examples of publishing > multiple file servers, authentication servers, and cpu servers. how many file servers and authentication servers are you running? - erik
