On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 12:04 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote: > Yep, discussion in IRC brought some of that up as a possible way to also > resolve some NAT problems. It's also similar to the way some other > distributed tools build up some really speedy command dispatch (though I > think Func with nforks=50 is probably close). sry, when did you spoke about it? > When we were talking about it on IRC, client1 was an overlord of > sub_client1, that is, the certs for sub_client1 were not stored on the > machine running the commands in question. Is that the way we would want > to do it? Support both? I am kind of in favor of tiered > overlords for very large organizations and that seems to be very valuable. I guess certificate are stored like now...server1 contain certificate about his network, and client1 the same...what do you suggest? > What might command line syntax for that look like? What about for > "send this command to every machine I have in the entire world"? I don't have idea right now :-) I guess you can register a proxy before launch command, and then launch command on sub network attached to that proxy/proxies... > If we do it right, we probably get multiple hops for free. oh yes, but ATM I don't yet have idea about the best design implementation regards Luca -- Today is Setting Orange, the 17th day of Discord in the YOLD 3174 _______________________________________________ Func-list mailing list Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list
