[distcc] distcc at large sites. Patch to get hosts file from
dank at kegel.com
Mon Sep 5 19:07:56 GMT 2005
Martin Pool wrote:
> It seems like this approximates the other proposed behaviour of having
> distcc.$SITE.company.com have A records for all the servers, and then
> doing locking etc by ip address. It has the advantage of requiring
> less cooperation from the DNS administrators, but the disadvantage of
> being a bit more of a special purpose hack.
I like to think of it as "appropriate technology". It's
darn hard to get the attention of the IT staff at
most large companies, so minimizing their involvement
is a key to success in many environments.
Also, the idea you mention has a problem when the set of A
records is larger than 512 bytes, doesn't it? (Or is RFC2671
universally deployed already?) That would make it hard
to use for large clusters.
I've polished and debugged the patch; the new version is at the same URL,
It no longer has any appreciable overhead beyond an extra stat
when the feature is not in use, so it's safe to always enable.
I haven't deployed it yet, but I'll try to do that this week.
Incidentally, my init.d script that starts up distccd will read
the list of allowed networks from /etc/distcc/$domain/hosts.allow,
so the idea of a $domain subdir for /etc/distcc
seems to be more than just a special purpose hack.
I suspect it will be generally useful at large multisite companies.
More information about the distcc