Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:24:27PM +0100, elric%imrryr.org@localhost wrote:
>       1.  throttling per minute makes it quite difficult or well
>           nigh impossible to achieve a reasonable configuration
>           setting where you can both:
> 
>               i.   achieve an acceptable average throughput, and
> 
>               ii.  prevent overloading.
> 
>           Let's just take a quick example.  Let's say you have
>           a service which typically takes 50ms to run but for
>           some requests the processing time might be as long as
>           2s.  This is not terribly atypical for, e.g. a web
>           server serving a combination of static pages and CGI
>           scripts.  Now, let's say that I find that my machine
>           starts to bog down when the load average reaches 50.
>           How exactly can I use ``connexions per minute'' to
>           prevent this from happening?  How can I get a reasonable
>           configuration?  How can I actually make any assurance
>           _at_ _all_ about the load on the system?

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.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--