Re: GSoC Proposal

On Tuesday 20 March 2007 14:03:11 Sback wrote:
> Dave Baker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 March 2007 13:15:54 Sback wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>  I would like to apply this project for the GSoC. I would appreciate
> >> your comments and suggestions!
> >>
> >>  Thank you,
> >>
> >>  Sback
> >
> > Thanks - I've included some comments below.
>
> Thank you very much for your time :)
>
> > [cut]
> >
> >> Benefits to the Freenet Community:
> >> With this project it will be much easier to start a Freenet Node
> >> in every QEmu supported Operative System.
> >
> > Why? Freenet already runs in Java, and half the point of Java is that
> > it's platform-independent. How will it being a QEmu image make it easier
> > than the current installer (or any hypothetical Freenet installer)?
>
> I think that with a QEmu machine it should be simpler because we can
> "pack" everything
> in a single executable that will start up a system that can be take care
> of everything involving
> a good functioning of a Freenet node.

That's the idea of the installer - it comes as a single file. Granted, it ends 
up as a directory on disk (along with appropriate shortcuts and suchlike) but 
it essentially looks the same to the user. I can't really see as there's much 
of a benefit from it being in a single file (there's no shortage, after all); 
certainly not enough to outweight the enournmous overhead of running inside a 
virtualiser.

> I mean it would be really easier 
> to perform auto-update
> for both the freenet code and the Java Virtual Machine.

They both do that anyway.

> For the user it is just "turning on a box" that will take care of
> everything. And I 
> think that is a good point for usability.

Right now, the user doesn't have to do anything at all, on windows, anyway: it 
starts up on system start. On unix it's just a matter of './run.sh start' or 
whatever it is nowadays.

> What is more there will be almost no security and crash problems for the
> hosting machine
> (as in every virtualized environment), probably in my application I
> should stress this point more.

Again - Java. We're in a virtual machine anyway. We can't use up all the 
memory, and we get free protection against stack smashing and the like, so 
vulerabilities in Freenet are much less likley anyway.

> If the node crashes there will be no problems for the hosting machine,
> it is just "turn it off and on again".
> Then it would be possible to specify even two differents subnet for the
> host and the guest,
> avoiding many security problems.
> What do you think?
>
> >> It will increase
> >> considerably the number of people trying this project and it
> >> will be a gain for its potential too.
> >
> > Again, how?
>
> See above :)
>
> >> Furthermore this work could be available both as a stable
> >> reference for tested freenet version and as a testing environment
> >> for developers to deploy new functionality.
> >
> > Potentially, but again, it's Java - we're (theoretically) abstracted away
> > from the machine anyway so the platform doesn't make much difference. The
> > differences come from node configuration, net connection and how the node
> > is peered.
>
> Maybe here I did not explained well. If you are developing something new
> and you
> want to try it. I think it would be really useful to try the changement
> before on a
> virtual machine than on your own PC. For instance Debian is looking for
> someone
> who could do something similar for their system upgrades :
> http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2007/SystemUpgradeTesting

Debian is an OS, so it's a rather different ball game. I can understand people 
wanting to test system upgrades on a virtual machine. If you want to to test 
potentially hazardous changes to Freenet, you just take a tarball of the 
directory first and restore it things go pear-shaped.

>
> >> Finally this QEmu instance could be used for studying pourposes,
> >> at user level too, on Freenet functionality (e.g. statistics,
> >> bandusage,...)
> >> even in a cluster of freenet nodes.
> >
> > Why do we need QEmu for that? We can set up an indefinate number nodes on
> > the same machine anyway.
> >
> > Essentially, the 'benefit' section leaves so many questions unanswered
> > that it doesn't actually explain the benefit at all, so I still don't
> > understand the point of the project. I'm sure there's a sensible aim
> > here, but I can't figure out what it is from reading the proposal!
>
> I think we should consider it from the point of view of a non-freenet
> developer.
> It could be really easier just to turn your n-virtual machines on and run
> classical system administration tools on it, than searching how to
> deploy n-nodes on
> the same machine. And they will have the same possibility as n-nodes
> connected to
> a virtual switch? I mean: it is like having n-computer to tests! :)

Well the only thing you'd have to change to get several nodes running on the 
same host would be the port numbers, which you'd still have to change in 
qemu, I assume, otherwise your machine would have no idea which node you 
wanted to connect to if you pointed your browser at localhost:8888. I don't 
know how qemu handles multiple copies of itself all wanting to listen on the 
same port, but whatever you do, you still end up with the same problem.

>
> In my opinion these are a lot of interesting benefits. And I hope to have
> explained it a little better.
>
> > Hope this helps,
>
> A lot! Particularlty on the part concerning the security (I left it away
>
> :( )
>
> Thank you very much ;)
>
> > Dave
>
> [cut]
>
>
>
> Sback
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech