[distcc] load management

Martin Pool mbp at samba.org
Wed Apr 28 01:28:03 GMT 2004

On 27 Apr 2004, Daniel Kegel <dkegel at google.com> wrote:

> I don't think that's needed.  In fact, it's probably better if
> the local server is connected to via a unix domain socket.
> That's slightly faster and more secure.
> Also, it lets us do tricky things like passing an open
> socket from the local server to the distcc program,
> so the bytes don't have to get relayed through the local server.

I would slightly lean against that because it would not work on
Windows.  I don't personally use Windows very often and supporting
every feature of distcc there is not absolutely critical but I
wouldn't break it lightly.

I would be surprised if there was a significant speed difference
between AF_UNIX and AF_INET at the rate of connections we're talking
about here.

> (I've been waiting ten years for a reason to use fd passing!)

Me too :-) but I think this is not the place.  (I already got to use
sendfile, TCP_CORK and deferaccept in distcc so I'm pretty satiated on
obscure Linux features.)

> It even lets us pass credentials, so the local server could
> even know for sure which unix user was making the request;
> that could come in handy if we want to restrict status info
> about jobs to the user who submitted the jobs.

Or you could just chmod the (directory containing the) socket. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/attachments/20040428/b35ace4c/attachment.bin

More information about the distcc mailing list