On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:33:05AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > Why on earth would you? It's just more administrative overhead, and > > yet another package you didn't need. > > What made you _think_ i dont need it?
Historically (like, 1980s and early 1990s) there was severe memory pressure, and just running inetd instead of the full daemons could make a significant difference. 'Modern' (anything in the last five years) hardware and kernel memory management doesn't show the same problem. There may still exist cases where inetd would actually make an improvement, but I've never seen one (and I've looked). How often do you have a daemon that places significant load on physical memory and swap space, but *is not doing anything*? Remember that daemons which have any serious amount of work to do are not candidates for inetd. These days, the sort of behaviour that would mean inetd made a significant improvement would normally be classified as a kernel bug. This is parallel to the 'compile stuff with cpu-specific options' noise from gentoo and the like. There was a time when it made a significant difference (notably the i586), but nowadays it basically doesn't, except in corner cases (libc, ssl). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
