Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:59:50 +0000 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: "Michael A. Bushkov" <bushman@rsu.ru> Subject: Re: dynamically linked root and nscd Message-ID: <20030627115950.GA8424@technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030627114313.73366D-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <45F05EA1-A89A-11D7-9C1D-000393BC13C6@rsu.ru> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030627114313.73366D-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:46:10AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Michael A. Bushkov wrote: > > > We've read some messages from "Making a dynamically-linked root", but > > we're still not sure if these things would be done or not. Will next > > versions of FreeBSD have a dynamically linked root? > > It sounds like 5.2 and future versions will support building the system > with a dynamically linked root; it's not clear to me that the decision on > whether to default to a dynamically linked root has been made yet (it > sounded like the jury was out on detailed performance measurements, etc). > > > And another questions: are you interested in developing nscd (Caching > > daemon) analog for FreeBSD? If you are, we have an ability to develop > > it. > > I think the answer is that, regardless of whether the default is dynamic > or not, there's still interest in a caching daemon for nsswitch, since it > will provide a way to do easy centralized caching and management, as well > as allow more functionality for those who choose not to link the system > dynamically. If you have the resources and interest to create such a > thing, I encourage you to do so :-). A useful starting exercise would be > to look at any existing implementations (especially Berkeley-licensed > ones) and see whether they could be used verbatim, how they could be > improved on, etc. I hate to intrude like this here, but I have a question. When you guys talk about "caching daemon," I hope you mean the same thing. Do you mean "a daemon that would only do caching and be queried by the libc stuff before the nss code calls the backend" or do you mean "a daemon that the nss code would talk to and that would not only do caching but also take care of calling the backend?" Because, in the former case, you still need to dynamically link whereas in the latter (more appealing case), you don't. I may be totally wrong here, but I could have sworn I saw someone post about working/having worked on something like the latter somewhere on our lists within the past two weeks. > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@technokratis.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org TECHNOkRATIS Consulting Services * http://www.technokratis.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030627115950.GA8424>