Hi Daniel, [Jean Delvare] > I would also question the interest of such an option. Was there a > significant improvement when compared with a fully randomized > distribution? I would think that a more simple rule would be not to > randomize the first host of the list and start randomizing after that. > Wouldn't it be sufficient?
[Daniel Kegel] > Any number of approaches would do. I didn't want to force > randomization down anyone's throat, so I made it an option. I do not discuss the fact that not everyone wants host randomization, so it has to be left as an option to the user. I was merely asking what granularity was needed for this option. I would myself be happy with a simple switch (randomize all slots or none), but it looks like other people have other needs (like randomizing a part only of the list). My question was, how sure are we that such a granularity is needed? If it turns out not to bring any significant improvement, then maybe the simple switch approach is sufficient - and it solves the point altogether (although in this case I would still suggest that localhost as the first entry of the list is considered differently, i.e. is never randomized for the sake of configure scripts). [Jean Delvare] > Or we could have ~/.distcc/hosts.random for randomized hosts. [Daniel Kegel] > Nah, let's not have two hosts lists. You're probably right, it might be more trouble than is worth. What about a modifier on the host line (in the hosts config file)? After all, there are already a lot of them with a funny syntax (for limiting the number of slots, enabling compression etc...). As we want per slot randomization, it would probably make sense to extend the "/" modifier for randomization. Something like: localhost/1 alpha/4r beta/4r gamma/2r Which I think is rather explicit. All slots tagged "r" would belong to the random pool instead of being picked in order. Would such a solution please everyone? The avantages over the previous approach are: 1* We keep the one-host-per-line logic, no option lines. 2* You don't have to group the randomized slots in the file. Now, again, I wouldn't want to do this if it has no proven advantage over the simple switch approach. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc