On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 14:54, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, why is that? Is it the storage overhead? Increasing
> > the number of processes? Or simply just the additional administrative
> > headache?
>
> more daemons means more things to get run when you least want them to run.
> It's just a good idea to keep the daemons to a minimum. Requiring a daemon
> to translate a unix domain socket to ip just strikes me as very
> unnecessary.
Sure, it's not quite that simple though. The unix domain interface
would be very very low-level. The messages would pretty much get passed
directly to the domain's ring queue.
The ip interface might support SNMP or some other standardized network
protocol. In the very least, the IP interface would have to be
endian-neutral which means that it's going to be a more complicated
protocol.
> But, I'm not writing it, so past a point I think you should ignore my
> requests if you don't like them :-)
Feedback is always a good thing. I'm very curious to see what people
would want the control software to do.
Thanks,
> ron
--
Anthony Liguori
Linux Technology Center (LTC) - IBM Austin
E-mail: aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (512) 838-1208
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Home