[omniORB] Initialization suggestions ...

[Richard Hardgrave]

> From shamus@tdcadsl.dk Tue Feb  5 17:05 CST 2002
> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:01:01 +0100
> From: bjorn rohde jensen <shamus@tdcadsl.dk>
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Richard Hardgrave <richard.hardgrave@teradyne.com>
> CC: omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com
> Subject: Re: [omniORB] Initialization suggestions ...
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
>  The setting, you describe, does sound a bit novel to me.
> Is there some reason, you can not share a single name service
> running on a host with a static ip-address/name between the hosts?

It's not that we cannot.  It's that we have not yet tried.
As I said, in my previous email, we have only been using
CORBA for IPC, stand-alone.   Novel, eh?

> In this case the config files should not really need updating
> and might even be identical for all hosts. I have found the
> combination of ssh-agent, scp and perl scripts quite effective
> in distributing configuration files.

Thanks. I'll look into these.

Here's what we do -
	We deliver a Solaris CD, our applications CD, and a third
party software CD (omniORB) to the customer, who installs both on
the SPARC station of their choice in the network.  They are free
to configure whatever IP address they want to, at that time.
	As I said, most all standard communications among the
machines is by ftp & telnet.  Our applications communicate with
RPC, mostly.  We're trying to upgrade from that because the
management of the code is getting ridiculous.  We have upwards
of 30,000 files to compile or otherwise process for a given
release.

>  If you are trying to perform some sort of load balancing/fault
> tolerance thing by replication of the system, a single shared

The replication of services is only because the CORBA configuration
is stand-alone.
Here's the tricky part:  If the customer's machine that has the
Naming Service on it is taken down for a new release upgrade,
we should be able to bring it up on any of the other machines
in the network so the service is still available.  This means
there will need to be some sort of broadcast announcement that
the location of the Naming Service has changed ( and, possibly
some of the servant IORs ).

> trading service would probably be a better solution.

Yes, load-balancing is one thing we might try doing, in the future.
I'll consider it.

Regards,

Richard

> 
> Your sincerely,
> 
> Bjorn
>