inetd will cause them to start a liiiitle bit slower, and adds something extra to break. But I've never had a problem with inetd/xinetd, with the exception being user error but with anything I'm touching thats not unlikely. Matt On 1/24/06, hanasaki <hanasaki@hanaden.com> wrote:

Any opinions on the reasons to run services from inetd vs leaving them running as daemons?

The main thing that comes to mind is for busy services like an MTA/email or Samba there is less overhead because there aren't alot of processes being spawned / forked. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

-- Got gmail? I do hahaha

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 02:54, hanasaki wrote:

Any opinions on the reasons to run services from inetd vs leaving them running as daemons?

For infrequent services, using [x]inetd saves you RAM when they're not in use.

On 1/24/06, hanasaki <hanasaki@hanaden.com> wrote:

Any opinions on the reasons to run services from inetd vs leaving them running as daemons?

running from (x)inetd means your server will operate on stdin/stdout the same way as it will on the socket, so if you are developing something, rather than simply installing, writing a server that works from inetd is easier as you don't have to bother with implementing and debugging a accept-and-fork loop. In fact, if all your servers are compiled without accep-and-fork loops, the total memory in use will be smaller, but nobody needs to optimize that hard for memory any more. Supposedly there is some way to get a program invoked in inetd to take over the connection acceptance instead of launching a new process on each connection but I never got that to work when I tried it. -- David L Nicol Joining Mensa means embracing the reality that at least 98 out of every hundred people are as stupid as you are.