On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:51:09 -0800, Joe Touch said: > This sounds like an opportunity for SGI to shift over to DNS-SD. > > We can change the line about "no known" to "only one known". We could > refer to DNS-SD going to PS as a rationale for obsoleting TCPMUX if > necessary, IMO. Not a really good fit. In general, you already *know* the hostname that has the service - it's the host you have the NFS mount from, or the current CXFS metadata server if you're inside the cluster. And trying to use DNS-SD for two logically distinct DMF archives is just *looking* for trouble. It would be a much better fit for portmapper actually (although that would involve leaving a daemon running to answer/forward queries - probably not as big an issue today as it was when they started coding DMF almost 25 years ago).
Attachment:
pgprUvbTred4J.pgp
Description: PGP signature