Management of Samba (again)
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at switchboard.net
Sat Mar 28 16:35:49 GMT 1998
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> > 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 :-).
> 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.
have i missed something here? i don't recall seeing the original message.
> ..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.
i wanted to suggest something, here. reloading of services can be done
1) put all the options that are used in standard_sub_basic() and
standard_sub() into a struct.
2) make two of these structs: sub_params and sub_params_old.
3) when you get a reload_services() call, if sub_params == sub_params_old,
More information about the samba-technical