From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 13 00:46:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCD416A424 for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 00:46:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from e.schuele@computer.org) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.152]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556E843D45 for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 00:46:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from e.schuele@computer.org) Received: from [192.168.214.215] (c-24-1-232-64.hsd1.tx.comcast.net[24.1.232.64]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20060513004654m1200404ile>; Sat, 13 May 2006 00:46:54 +0000 Message-ID: <44652C7D.4040604@computer.org> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 19:46:53 -0500 From: Eric Schuele User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060426) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Questions References: <4464B95D.1040702@computer.org> <20060512171515.GC34035@catflap.slightlystrange.org> <4464CEDA.80906@computer.org> <20060512202934.GE34035@catflap.slightlystrange.org> In-Reply-To: <20060512202934.GE34035@catflap.slightlystrange.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of running under inetd.... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 00:46:55 -0000 Daniel Bye wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:07:22PM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: >> Although I am curious about ftpd and tcpwrappers.... I am also >> interested in whether or not running these daemons under inetd is >> preferred or not. If so why? If not, why? > > Certainly for anything that has a reasonably expensive start up, such as > sshd, you will probably want to run it as a standalone daemon, because > it's easier on the system to start it up only once and then fork a new > child for each client connection. > > On the other hand, using inetd will allow you to have only one > 'superserver' running, which can spawn the appropriate daemon as > required. This means that you won't have idle daemons lying around, as > they are cleaned up once the session ends. > > One obvious shortcoming, as you point out, is that the stock ftpd > doesn't seem to understand how to consult /etc/hosts.allow, so if you > have one configured already, then you might want to use inetd to control > ftpd. There may be alternative ftpd servers in the ports that do know > how to use tcpwrappers, but I've never used any others so don't know. > > So, I suppose the real answer to your question is that you should use > inetd if you need to use one of the features that it provides, such as > tcpwrappers. I can't think of any reason to not use inetd, and I > haven't heard any reasonable arguments suggesting it's particularly bad > for your health. YMMV, etc. Thanks for the response. I'm of a similar opinion. For this particular application (my laptop and occasional use, plus its usually ipfw'd away from the world) I think its fine... and unless I find another solution, I'll probably run ftpd under inetd, and sshd standalone. > > Dan > -- Regards, Eric