[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: proposal: inetd improvements.
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
Main Index |
Thread Index |