[distcc] Suggestion about host selection

Don Provan dprovan at bivio.net
Thu Jun 19 19:11:36 GMT 2008

Another possibility, perhaps in addition, would be to add
a weighting value. The existing number indicates how many
slots are allowed altogether, an additional number could
indicate the ratio of slots any given host should be
assigned relative to other hosts in the list. I think that
does a lot of what you're driving at, but with a more
obvious and easier to use syntax and a simpler implementation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: distcc-bounces+dprovan=bivio.net at lists.samba.org
> [mailto:distcc-bounces+dprovan=bivio.net at lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of
> Thomas Schürger
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:57 AM
> To: distcc at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [distcc] Suggestion about host selection
> > If this was the way it was done, it'll lead to poor utilization of 
> > servers in some situations: the number of concurrent jobs 
> accepted at 
> > the servers is 2 greater than their number of CPUs. So, the 
> client would 
> > fill the first server with more jobs than in can handle at 
> the same time 
> > before even considering the second server. (Remember that the slot 
> > mechanism on the client does not take into account which 
> servers other 
> > clients have reserved.)
> It would be fine with me if the current slot selection would 
> remain the
> default, but it should also be possible to use the other slot 
> selection
> if the user wants that.
> > On the other hand, the statement 'prefers hosts towards the 
> start of the 
> > list' is very much true in the aggregate when you have multiple 
> > concurrent clients using the servers!  Then you should 
> consider using 
> > the --randomize flag, which probably should have been the default 
> > setting anyway.
> Where is that flag? Randomized selection sounds good. What about
> using an exponential distribution, which prefers slots towards the
> start of the list? Would be easy to implement.
> > The major omission in the current code, in my opinion, is that 
> > randomization does not take into account the specified host slots.
> OK, that would be something to change then.
> It would be fine if one could list a host multiple times (which would
> emulate the behavior I was looking for). This is not possible 
> currently.
> For example, I could choose to use
> host1/1 host1/1 host1/1 host1/1 host1/1 host1/1 host2/1 
> host2/1 host3/1 
> host3/1 host3/1
> which would lead to what I wanted. But with the current selection
> algorithm, each of the hosts' slots would have the same slot number
> (all 1), so when host1/1 is locked, distcc would try to use the
> second host1/1 entry, which of course is also locked (same lockfile
> name). So in practice this is really the same as "host1/1 host2/1
> host3/1".
> The easiest way for a better selection implementation would be to
> first expand the host/slotcount list to a list of host/slotnumber
> pairs and then select
> a) linearly from the front
> b) with exponential random distribution
> c) with uniform random distribution
> d) ... what ever else may seem appropriate
> Greetings,
> Thomas.
> __ 
> distcc mailing list            http://distcc.samba.org/
> To unsubscribe or change options: 
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc

More information about the distcc mailing list