[9fans] Server management

[9fans] Server management

[Enrico Weigelt]

Hi folks,


while thinking about my plans for using 9P servers in numerious
situations I just realized that server management can become
quite complex.

For example if an application like mozilla would move out many
jobs (ie. like currently discussing @ mozilla.org: rss-feeds),
server management can be quite complicated. We can't expect
neither the user nor the individual application to be responsible
for that. We need some zero-configuration approach.

Actually it can be done by another server, which knows about
all the individual servers, handles startup/shutdown and tells
the clients where to find them, how to authenticate, etc, etc.
A little bit like RPC portmap.

What do you think about this idea ?


cu
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Server management

[Gabriel Diaz]

hello

i think resfs (andrey mirtchovsky) and srvfs are just flavours of what
you are thinking, take a look, may be those inspires you. Also the
plan9 volfs (nemo) could have some ideas.

i think the plan9 way would be something like
9p://server/service_list_fs and then clicking on them would bring you
to that service via a 9p url. . .:-?

i suppose this is just 1 cent. :)

slds.

gabi




On 9/13/07, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> while thinking about my plans for using 9P servers in numerious
> situations I just realized that server management can become
> quite complex.
>
> For example if an application like mozilla would move out many
> jobs (ie. like currently discussing @ mozilla.org: rss-feeds),
> server management can be quite complicated. We can't expect
> neither the user nor the individual application to be responsible
> for that. We need some zero-configuration approach.
>
> Actually it can be done by another server, which knows about
> all the individual servers, handles startup/shutdown and tells
> the clients where to find them, how to authenticate, etc, etc.
> A little bit like RPC portmap.
>
> What do you think about this idea ?
>
>
> cu
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
>         http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
>  Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
>         http://patches.metux.de/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Re: [9fans] Server management

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On 9/13/07, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
>
> while thinking about my plans for using 9P servers in numerious
> situations I just realized that server management can become
> quite complex.
>
> For example if an application like mozilla would move out many
> jobs (ie. like currently discussing @ mozilla.org: rss-feeds),
> server management can be quite complicated. We can't expect
> neither the user nor the individual application to be responsible
> for that. We need some zero-configuration approach.
>
> Actually it can be done by another server, which knows about
> all the individual servers, handles startup/shutdown and tells
> the clients where to find them, how to authenticate, etc, etc.
> A little bit like RPC portmap.
>
> What do you think about this idea ?
>

While going with something "standard" (but a bit sticky) like zeroconf
may be attractive, you may want to look at what the Plan B guys did --
IIRC they have network discovery and organization integrated into
their basic framework.

Essentially I think it makes the most sense to work this sort of
auto-discovery into existing services (ndb/cs for instance).
Accomodating zeroconf as a protocol would be nice (particularly from a
cross-platform compatibility angle), but you could also do something
like Inferno's registry.

          -eric

Re: [9fans] Server management

[Francisco J Ballesteros]

For Plan 9 you could use either version of adsrv. The one in sources
is centralized,
and behaves similar to a registry. The one in our dumb (probably in
sources dump as
well) was a distributed one (no longer in production use).

For the octopus I think I copied a modified registry that knows how to
report changes
to blocked readers. In case I didn't, assuming anyone might want such
thing, just drop
us a line.


On 9/13/07, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> >
> > while thinking about my plans for using 9P servers in numerious
> > situations I just realized that server management can become
> > quite complex.
> >
> > For example if an application like mozilla would move out many
> > jobs (ie. like currently discussing @ mozilla.org: rss-feeds),
> > server management can be quite complicated. We can't expect
> > neither the user nor the individual application to be responsible
> > for that. We need some zero-configuration approach.
> >
> > Actually it can be done by another server, which knows about
> > all the individual servers, handles startup/shutdown and tells
> > the clients where to find them, how to authenticate, etc, etc.
> > A little bit like RPC portmap.
> >
> > What do you think about this idea ?
> >
>
> While going with something "standard" (but a bit sticky) like zeroconf
> may be attractive, you may want to look at what the Plan B guys did --
> IIRC they have network discovery and organization integrated into
> their basic framework.
>
> Essentially I think it makes the most sense to work this sort of
> auto-discovery into existing services (ndb/cs for instance).
> Accomodating zeroconf as a protocol would be nice (particularly from a
> cross-platform compatibility angle), but you could also do something
> like Inferno's registry.
>
>           -eric
>