From: Enrico Weigelt Subject: portmap -> map db entirely in filesystem Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 21:58:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20080513195831.GA18915@nibiru.local> Reply-To: weigelt-EU+a56NjgY8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: linux-nfs Return-path: Received: from s15216962.onlinehome-server.info ([217.160.22.205]:41616 "EHLO s15216962.onlinehome-server.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932109AbYEMUPo (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 16:15:44 -0400 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by s15216962.onlinehome-server.info (8.13.3/8.13.3) with UUCP id m4DJxQD7010213 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 13 May 2008 21:59:26 +0200 Received: (from weigelt@localhost) by nibiru.metux.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id m4DJwV8d024636 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 13 May 2008 21:58:31 +0200 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi folks, while working on portmap, I was thinking about moving the entire mapping table to the filesystem: one file per record. Benefits: * allows much simpler code: no internal maptable and load/store logic - just simple file IO (even limited to REST) * external programs can directly manipulate the map db, w/o goint through portmap itself * several portmap's (eg. for serving on separate sockets or different security domains) can easily share the same map. * less process memory consumption of portmap (on larger maps) Drawbacks: * a bit slower, more IO traffic * we have to rethink chroot'ing What do you think about this ? cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------