Re: [9fans] Server management

["Francisco J Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>]

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
>