On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Thomas S Hatch <thatch45@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > Awesome, I actually have a few servers I will use, and since it will be > > distributed, we will be able to use a lot of servers as builders all > > reporting to a single master. > > why all the distributed goodness, then a crippling single master? it > would not be much more difficult to use 1-to-1 queues-to-server. > nodes that fill up return a redirect, or denial. a simple DNS scheme > can facilitate auto-discovery... nodes register for an ID under the > domain, any simply move down the list. TXT records can provide the > lists of root nodes if you really want. with more work, this can be > made to work through NAT, a la p2-esque, but that's more ambitious. > > > As for the web end, I was thinking of having the web frontend just act as > a > > notification area about the queue and the builds, so people could check > on > > build stats and download experimental pkgs etc. Then the queue would be > > managed via the scms. > > no way man, go big or go home! web interface is full out AUR replacement. > > C Anthony > Hmm, a pure peer setup? My thought on the master has more to do with central job control, and the fact that distributing can be easily done, the master is a lightwieght server compared tot he builders, and the master will just present what needs to be build and pull whats built into repos, this way the master can scale out to a ton of builders and all of the decisions about who builds is done by the builders talking to each other. Of course.... we could have separate master dedicated to specific repos and configurations but share the builder pool, so that we have a simple many to many relationship.....
