On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Iain Price wrote:
> Since you have a standalone master daemon process, the listener, why not
> use that to 'co-ordinate' stuff - i'm not a master of C/C++ IPC (in fact
> i hate it and prefer java as a consequence, but i have little love of C
> :). The exim processes could tell that, and exiwhat could ask it.
Not everybody runs a daemon (you can use inetd instead). And please,
don't use the word "master" in connection with the daemon. It gives the
wrong impression. The whole point about the design of Exim is that it
does NOT have any kind of "master" process.
> As a side effect, a currently useless concept - a daemon exim that
> neither listens or forks queue runners becomes something someone may use
> one day just for it's co-ordination powers.
One person's coordination is another person's bottleneck.
(Economists might draw parallels with centrally-planned economies at
this point.)
> plus the exim daemon could keep a small history if that was useful, or
> some other short term data - performance times or something. Well,
> centralised communications is something exim doesn't do, but doesn't
> have too much need for, but since there's the listener hanging around
> anyway, give it something else to chew on :)
... thereby using more resources and reducing its performance? With lots
of incoming connections, the daemon is already the bottleneck...
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
