[erlang-questions] Idea for deprecating EPMD

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

Hi Geoff,

How would you know which port where each erlang node listens on? With epmd,
the node publishes the port to the daemon and the peers need not know it.
It feels to me that a central registry is still needed, or each node would
have to run its own copy somehow. The latter might work relatively easy for
regular nodes, but we also have C and Java nodes...

regards,
Vlad


On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Geoff Cant <nem@REDACTED> wrote:

> Hi all, I find EPMD to be a regular frustration when deploying and
> operating Erlang systems. EPMD is a separate service that needs to be
> running for Erlang distribution to work properly, and usually (in systems
> that don’t use distribution for their main function) it's not set up right,
> and you only notice in production because the only time you use for
> distribution is to get a remote shell (over localhost). (Maybe I’m just bad
> at doing this, but I do it a lot)
>
> Erlang node names already encode host information —
> ‘descriptive_name@REDACTED’. If we include the erlang distribution listen
> port too, that would remove the need for EPMD. For example:
> ‘descriptive_name@REDACTED:distribution_port’. Node names using this
> scheme would skip the EPMD step, otherwise erlang distribution would fall
> back to the current system.
>
>
> My questions for the list are:
> * Are you annoyed by epmd too?
> * Do you think this idea is worth me writing up into an EEP or writing a
> pull request?
> * Do you think this idea is unworkable for some reason I’m overlooking?
>
> Thanks,
> -Geoff
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20151209/7be82017/attachment.htm>