From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenctld - a control channel multiplexing daemon Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:14:48 -0600 Message-ID: <1106342088.18665.1.camel@localhost> References: <1106322956.17263.26.camel@localhost> <1106337581.18070.13.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Ronald G. Minnich" Cc: xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 14:44, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > It's not so much about whether there would be an IP interface at all, > > more about what's the lowest possible interface. A daemon that uses the > > domain socket interface could then export an IP interface. > > another daemon would be a concern. On these slave nodes, the fewer daemons > the better. Out of curiosity, why is that? Is it the storage overhead? Increasing the number of processes? Or simply just the additional administrative headache? > ron -- Anthony Liguori Linux Technology Center (LTC) - IBM Austin E-mail: aliguori@us.ibm.com 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