Professional Web Applications Themes

inetd vs standalone daemon - FreeBSD

Is inetd a daemon that start other daemons ? Is sql and apache a standalone daemon ? Can i delete inetd ? I vote we get rid of inetd :)...

  1. #1

    Default inetd vs standalone daemon

    Is inetd a daemon that start other daemons ?
    Is sql and apache a standalone daemon ?
    Can i delete inetd ?
    I vote we get rid of inetd :)
    Gert Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 07:46:09PM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: 

    Why would you want to? Just don't enable it from /etc/rc.conf
    and you'll be fine. If you need it, you can always enable it
    later. Many machines run just fine without inetd. It all depends
    what you wanna do.
     

    No. With inetd, you can also turn regular filters into network
    aware programs (sort of). And not every network service is always
    needed all the time. Having a deamon for each of those seldom used
    services hanging around is just wastful.

    -cpghost.

    --
    Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
    cpghost@cordula.ws Guest

  3. #3

    Default RE: inetd vs standalone daemon

    > Is inetd a daemon that start other daemons ?
    YES
     
    YES
     
    Just don't start it at boot time
     
    It's your box, do what ever you want

    _______________________________________________
    org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    "org"

    Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    At 02:05 PM 3/27/2005, ws wrote: 
    >
    >No. With inetd, you can also turn regular filters into network
    >aware programs (sort of). And not every network service is always
    >needed all the time. Having a deamon for each of those seldom used
    >services hanging around is just wastful.[/ref]

    How much wasting is going on though? Can I get a good feel for resources
    consumed by looking at 'top'?

    I'm happy with my set up the way it is and am just asking in the hopes of
    learning more than I know (not very hard at this point).

    Marty


    Marty Landman, Face 2 Interface Inc. 845-679-9387
    Search & Sort Easily: http://face2interface.com/Products/FormATable.shtml
    Web Installed Formmail: http://face2interface.com/formINSTal

    Marty Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:05:11 +0200, ws
    <ws> wrote: 
    >
    > Why would you want to? Just don't enable it from /etc/rc.conf
    > and you'll be fine. If you need it, you can always enable it
    > later. Many machines run just fine without inetd. It all depends
    > what you wanna do.

    >
    > No. With inetd, you can also turn regular filters into network
    > aware programs (sort of). And not every network service is always
    > needed all the time. Having a deamon for each of those seldom used
    > services hanging around is just wastful.[/ref]

    i think its less wasteful cpu time to run separate daemons then to run
    1 big daemon. Because the big daemon needs to find out which service
    it needs to start every time a fedex guy is knocking at the door while
    a separate daemon already knows what it needs to do before the fedex
    guy is standing at the door.
    Gert Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:13:00 -0500, com
    <com> wrote: 
    > YES

    > YES

    > Just don't start it at boot time[/ref]

    and that would be (rc.conf) inetd_enable="NO" ?
     
    > It's your box, do what ever you want[/ref]

    So how do we remove it from freebsd ? Please let it be a pkg_delete :)
    If not witch freebsd source developer do i need to pull his leg to
    remove it from source into a pkg ?
    Gert Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2005-03-27, Gert Cuykens scribbled these
    curious markings: 

    Kind of. Its manual page is very descriptive.
     

    SQL is (or is not, depending upon whom you believe) the Structured Query
    Language. It's a standard, a concept, an idea. It has no representation
    as software. Certain implementations of SQL, however, in server-based
    environments manifest themselves as daemons, yes. Certain other
    implementations in server-like environments don't manifest themselves as
    daemons (e.g. SQLite).

    Apache can be run either way, but I've never found a need to run it
    under inetd. It's always served me well in standalone mode.
     

    I wouldn't. Why do you want to do so? Besides, unless you add the
    appropriate flag somewhere in your buildworld infrastructure, it'll be
    built and reinstalled when you update your base system anyway.
     

    And I vote that you research your votes before making them.

    Best Regards,
    Christopher Nehren
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFCRxSuk/lo7zvzJioRAkQyAKCFyKQqlkY45qBHNgiEno1mfGD7rwCfc9ZD
    vFw39yYDXVwRd+wGEvNSOEI=
    =1oct
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded
    pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson
    If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God".
    Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly.

    Christopher Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2005-03-27, Gert Cuykens scribbled these
    curious markings: 

    Here's a bit of basic information about FreeBSD. Despite what you may
    have learned about Linux, having every single file in the system
    managed by a package is *NOT* a good idea[1]. You end up with systems
    lacking compilers[2] that way, which confuse new users who try to build
    software. inetd is not part of any package, and I hope that it never
    will be. inetd is part of FreeBSD's base system -- the collection of
    software, doentation, &c. that the FreeBSD group maintains on their
    own, separate from the Ports Collection which is (for the most part)
    composed entirely of third-party software.

    I will admit that this doesn't permit for the granularity available in
    Linux distributions. But personally, I don't want that sort of
    granularity. I don't want to have to *worry* about installing a
    compiler, OpenSSL, and the like. I just want to tell it to install
    everything and have it *actually* install everything.

    If you want to make a fully package-based version of FreeBSD, where
    everything from /bin/ls to /usr/sbin/inetd is a package, then by all
    means do so. You won't even be alone in your desire. I seem to remember
    a group of people vocalising a request for this a while ago. You'll
    never be able to count me as a user, though. :)

    [1]: I'm not exactly pleased with the "distributions" concept when you
    install, but since I always select "All" anyway, it's a moot point I
    suppose.

    [2]: And other crucial things like OpenSSL, which even crops up on
    FreeBSD from time to time.

    Best Regards,
    Christopher Nehren
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFCRxbyk/lo7zvzJioRAuY6AJ97blX5BpXNuvL96dK2yHdKeS8NKACgqd/r
    P8L8J/sI8CveGycvd0yv/cg=
    =ytvh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded
    pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson
    If you ask the wrong questions, you get answers like "42" and "God".
    Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly.

    Christopher Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    Im still confused as to your questions.. again.. most of these are answered
    by a simple glance at the FreeBSD handbook:

    http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-inetd.html

    If you want to remove the inetd binary from your system .. go for it...
    There are those who still use it as a wrapper for other services... such at
    identd (auth) or even finger

    As far as removing it from sources.. you could try to "pull a freebsd source
    developers leg" but I assume you wont get very far..

    The Fed-Ex metaphor is interesting but not really relevent to all services
    wrapped in inetd..

    T

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gert Cuykens" <com>
    To: <com>
    Cc: <org>
    Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:01 PM
    Subject: Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

     
    >> YES
    >> 
    >> YES
    >> 
    >> Just don't start it at boot time[/ref]
    >
    > and that would be (rc.conf) inetd_enable="NO" ?

    >> It's your box, do what ever you want[/ref]
    >
    > So how do we remove it from freebsd ? Please let it be a pkg_delete :)
    > If not witch freebsd source developer do i need to pull his leg to
    > remove it from source into a pkg ?
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
    > "org"
    >[/ref]


    Thomas Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:51:54PM +0200, Gert Cuykens wrote: 
    > >
    > > No. With inetd, you can also turn regular filters into network
    > > aware programs (sort of). And not every network service is always
    > > needed all the time. Having a deamon for each of those seldom used
    > > services hanging around is just wastful.[/ref]
    >
    > i think its less wasteful cpu time to run separate daemons then to run
    > 1 big daemon. Because the big daemon needs to find out which service
    > it needs to start every time a fedex guy is knocking at the door while
    > a separate daemon already knows what it needs to do before the fedex
    > guy is standing at the door.[/ref]

    inetd itself is not "big." It doesn't contain all other daemons.
    Rather than that, it listens on the ports that are configured in
    /etc/inetd.conf and accepts connections. Then (and only then)
    would it fork() the configured program to handle the connection.

    inetd is not useful to every kind of application. Running a web
    server from inetd for every connection attempt would be silly.
    But running some obscure service, that is only needed every
    now and then, could be a good idea. Consider tftp as an example:
    this is mainly used to netboot diskless machines or to upload
    IOS updates to routers etc... On a typical network, tftp requests
    would probably arrive at a rate of <1 per day. Having tftpd hanging
    around as a daemon is not needed.

    -cpghost.

    --
    Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
    cpghost@cordula.ws Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: inetd vs standalone daemon

    On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:23:39PM -0500, Marty Landman wrote: 

    top would only tell you how much memory a process consumes. But a
    process also uses other resources like vnodes (open file handles,
    open sockets etc...). It also uses up a slot in the process table,
    and hangs around on some wait queue too.

    -cpghost.

    --
    Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
    cpghost@cordula.ws Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Running vsftpd standalone vs inetd
    By Pat in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 6th, 02:11 PM
  2. inetd vs xinetd
    By Simon Timms in forum Linux / Unix Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 16th, 05:28 AM
  3. php and inetd
    By Disco Plumber in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 11th, 05:20 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 15th, 08:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139