From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 9 20:31:40 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036FC16A4DE; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:31:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (ns0.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.187.76.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25BB743D45; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:31:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k79KVGfH006610; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:31:16 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk from=m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk; sender-id=softfail; spf=neutral X-SenderID: Sendmail Sender-ID Filter v0.2.14 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk k79KVGfH006610 Received: (from matthew@localhost) by happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k79KVFcu006609; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:31:15 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from matthew) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:31:15 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <20060809203115.GA6520@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , Bill Moran , "Marc G. Fournier" , Howard Jones , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20060809105404.GC19441@sysadm.stc> <44DA0715.1020507@utdallas.edu> <20060809130634.S7522@ganymede.hub.org> <44DA0DDF.40300@thingy.com> <20060809134007.U7522@ganymede.hub.org> <44DA1502.2040803@thingy.com> <20060809142006.F7522@ganymede.hub.org> <44DA299C.8080801@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20060809151629.43741c35.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060809151629.43741c35.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:::1]); Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:31:31 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/1642/Wed Aug 9 15:30:49 2006 on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_POLICY_TESTING,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk Cc: Howard Jones , "Marc G. Fournier" , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDstats Project v2.0 ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:31:40 -0000 --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:16:29PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Matthew Seaman : >=20 > > This problem is intractable: any scheme you can think of to generate a > > unique identifying number on a random host out there on the net will ei= ther > > fail to actually be unique, or suffer from mutating over time as machine > > configuration changes. >=20 > Really? What if you just generate some sort of UID or GUID and store it > in /var/db/bsdstats.guid (or similar)? Well, exactly. What I neglected to say in the above was "to generate a unique identifying number that encodes part of the machine configuration." However, you're right in that the client could just invent its own random ID number. Given the large number of possible ID numbers in the scheme I proposed, there shouldn't be any problem with collisions so long as all those machines are generating good random numbers[1]. On reflection, the advantages of having the server generate the ID numbers are not really all that compelling. Cheers, Matthew [1] In fact, it would be a pretty neat experiment to get a whole load of machines to generate a chunk'o'randomness and send it into a central machine and see just how evenly distributed the answers are. --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE2kYT8Mjk52CukIwRAlG/AJ4tKToBzsE6tPgb40fejFnjZ++xvACcD6yr LO2TMSWOSs+Sbt+V7vQvEiQ= =TgQ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--