[distcc] Bootable distcc node

[Dan Kegel]

daPlumber wrote:
>>I can see that not having to install anything on the Windows box is
>>an advantage for the bootable CD approach.  However, that removes
>>the Windows box from normal operation.  My approach leaves the box
>>usable as a Windows box while making it available as a node in
>>the distcc network.   I haven't verified performance yet -- 
>>it's likely
>>that the cygwin approach isn't quite as fast as the native 
>>linux approach --
>>but the slightly lower performance might be worth it in return for
>>not having to deprive the Windows box owners of the use of 
>>their machines sometimes.
> 
> 
> You haven't had to deal with the average Windows IT department much have
> you? :-)
> 
> It's pretty easy to get permission to do something non-disruptive, and a
> bootable cd counts. There are a lot of systems that would otherwise be
> powered down or not used outside of "office hours".

Yep.  And on the other hand, if you want the distcc cluster available
during business hours, the cygwin approach might be appropriate.

> Not to mention that I
> think that a bootable cd is easier to create than a "SETI at Home" style
> screensaver.

That's why I'd probably run it as an NT (now XP) service rather
than as a systray thingy.

> I think there's more than enough room for both approaches?

Yes, they're both useful though in different circumstances.
- Dan

-- 
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change