If your network is 100MB, and you've got a reasonable performance
switch and high performance file server, network overhead on using
a network cache this way isn't particularly noticeable compared the
gains in speed by grabbing files from the cache that were compiled
by other people.
You mean having the file server accessed by both clients for reading
and servers for writing? I was thinking about accessing the file
server from the distccd servers only but you're right one can take
advantage of it directly from clients. I'll give it a try. I hope
that the first time penalty (double network transfer of the output)
will not overcome the benefits.
As for server selection schemes, I suspect it will be worthwhile to
ensure that your load balancing avoids race conditions - it seems
likely that the server with the highest score at any given moment
might find itself swamped by several eager clients, especially as
you get more programmers and continuous integration/build-bot
processes.
If a server gets swamped, it won't keep the highest score for long.
But I agree there may be contention if many clients broadcast to ask
for the best host at the same time and then all select the same one.
As far as I know, when the distccd daemon is busy, it awaits for
children processes to exit and one can't know how many clients are
blocked attempting to connect to the daemon. So when all servers are
busy, it's difficult to say which one has the less pending
connections. That information would be usefull for load balancing.
Laurent
__
distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/
To unsubscribe or change options:
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
