Re: Management of Samba (again)

Christopher R. Hertel (crh@NTS.Umn.EDU)
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:23:26 -0600 (CST)

From:	"Christopher R. Hertel" <crh@NTS.Umn.EDU>
Message-Id: <199803271823.MAA08449@unet.unet.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: Management of Samba (again)
To:	jallison@whistle.com (Jeremy Allison)
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:23:26 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <351BE9BF.4A7B7C1D@whistle.com> from "Jeremy Allison" at Mar 27, 98 10:02:39 am

> The problem with this is *speed*. If all lp_XX calls
> were redirected to a separate daemon Samba would run
> slower than a one-legged dog in a whippet race (sorry,
> that's my northen England background coming out there :-).

Jeremy,

That's exactly why I put all of the disclaimers into my message. I was
simply giving examples of how this *might* be done, not how we'd do it
because you're exactly right about such changes. The point of the
message was to architect a means by which we could support all of the
different management interfaces that people were kicking around.

...but, to the practical...

Each Samba dameon (nmbd, smbd) could keep a cache of all parameter
settings as they do now. When they got a reload signal, they might
reload from the config daemon instead of smb.conf.

That's just a quick fix to the problem you brought up. There are
probably better ways. I just don't want to get stuck on implementation
issues--as important as they may be--yet.

Chris -)-----

-- 
Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
crh@nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services