[Pvfs2-developers] Re: unifying config files

[Sam Lang]

On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Rob Ross wrote:

> Since our config file is text, can't we skip any encoding? I agree  
> that it would be more concise, but we don't send config files  
> around all that often.

With zero conf they would be generated on the fly, so a text format  
isn't really necessary, and would be harder to update change than an  
internal struct representation that we just encode/decode.

-sam

>
> Rob
>
> Sam Lang wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:54 AM, Murali Vilayannur wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>> I see..So do you wish that we fallback to parsing from server config
>>> file if that were to be specified in place of a server-alias  
>>> string in
>>> command line..
>>> That shouldn't be too hard, no?
>> Hmm...well if the server config file isn't specified, why can't  
>> the server just get the hostname instead of requiring an alias?
>> Yeah I was thinking that if a server config was specified as the  
>> second argument to the pvfs2-server, the server would go ahead and  
>> use those values for endpoint, storage location, logfile, etc.
>>> Any updates on what the current stance on zero-conf based server
>>> startups, i.e. is there still any interest and/or preferred
>>> approaches? :)
>> Definitely still interest.  I'm not sure we've come up with an  
>> approach yet.  I would argue a first step toward zero conf would  
>> be encoding/decoding the config using the lebf encoding layer.   
>> This would give us a more efficient representation of the config,  
>> as well as make it easier to modify at runtime.
>