On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:44 -0700, Hart, Darren wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:04 AM, Zanussi, Tom wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 08:40 -0700, Stewart, David C wrote:Everything on One machine doesn't make a lot of sense to me, for two
I can try getting everything running on one machine too - would it make
** Alex will put the hardware bits together, Darren to write down the description of what needs to come together and wiki-fy it. RP suggests that maybe getting all the pieces running on one hardware might be a good way to try it out just in case.
sense to try that all on e.g. emenlow, or all on a laptop using qemu, or
1) This is heavily network dependent, making sure the machines can find
eachother is a critical aspect of testing this.
2) Qemu does some magic with tun/tap devices, you have to configure
things to get multicast working between guests. I've tested the
mediatomb image in qemu, it works. We need to test on real hardware.
3) We don't an image that will install everything on the same machine,
and making one doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
4) Running a NAS to serve up media to itself doesn't test the networking
side of things as well.
I'd rather use 3 real devices (even if they are all emenlow or
blacksand) rather than qemu or all on one.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense as a demo per se, but for the folks who only
have one system, to get it all going. Another motivition I thought was
to have 'something' as a worst-case fallback, e.g. with all the 'moving
pieces' Dave is worried about.
Actually, it could make a little bit of sense to have a single
nas-mediatomb-xxxclient image, pointing to each other on localhost, that
could be easily tweaked in the field and swapped in/out as any one of
the components - just a thought and probably not worth it at this point.