On 24 Feb 2012, at 17:01, Ewan MacMahon wrote:
>>
>
>> By all means base it on something else, but then if it does not behave as
>> expected you won't get much help from the developers.
>>
> I have now filed that idea under 'bad things to not do';
> we should clearly stick to the standard issue stuff.
I'd moderate that to 'a good idea not to do until you know and understand the toolkit'
In al likelihood it won't be too hard to run on top of another base OS - so long as teh kernel is compatible - but as long as you're wondering why it doesn't do what you expect being based on tehiur CentOS packaging probably makes sense.
--Ian
>
>> The web interface makes it really very straightforward to enable all the
>> relevant tests (ie bandwidth only on one host and latency on another) and
>> then configure them for the hosts you choose.
>>
> Well in that case I think the main thing we need is a list of
> the hosts to make them talk to. Do we have one of those, and
> are the existing PerfSonar endpoints (like yours) generally
> open to being talked to, or do we need to let you know where
> the connections will be coming from?
>
> Ewan
|