Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[elric%imrryr.org@localhost]

On 1275658429 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch
Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>

>inetd is probably the wrong tool for such a case. inetd if for light-load
>services where you're likely to get a few requests per minutes in normal
>use (e.g. fingerd, rwalld, the amanda daemons, ...). For the load you
>describe you want a specialized, pre-forking or multithreaded daemon.
>
>Actually I'm using inetd's trottle feature on production systems and
>I'm happy with it.

Right, and I'm proposing extending inetd to be able to subsume more
use cases which makes the requirements a bit more stringent.  I do
not think that it's a great idea to unnecessarily limit the
applicability of inetd to light-load services.

--
    Roland Dowdeswell                      http://Imrryr.ORG/~elric/