On 11/14/2016 07:40 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
But... I see the advantage of xinetd when the target service is used sparsely. Once the job is finished, the rsyncd daemon exits and frees resources.
I'm not sure that makes sense. The Apache daemon listens for connections then spawns a copy of itself to deal with each incoming request. its real overhead is the CGI code, the RoR, the PHP or the Perl code. Linux is using shared code for the forks are efficient, it is the "execl"s to the CGI that cost. Rsyncd is not spawning any CGI. With Apache, as each process completes the code, the child is released and the parent process 'reaps' up the details. I can't see how a rsyncd "master" listener that spawns copies in the same was as Apache is any worse off. Your problem seems to be with the termination of the child processes.
But if it is used regularly, why not use the rsync daemon directly?
Another thing that I do not know, is what happens when there are two or more clients simultaneously. Do you get as many daemons running? In that case, you start to lose the advantage.
No more so that with Apache. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org