Project review: Parallel KDC

[Simo Sorce]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:54:55 -0600
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:

>  - The reply cache is less important if you can handle many concurrent
>    requests.  A per-KDC reply cache would be fine.  Alternatively
> using a replay cache where each request/reply pair is stored in an
>    individual file named after a hash of the request, with each file
>    created with O_EXCL.  This would move all locking to the filesystem
>    (which should be tmpfs).

What's wrong with shared memory (eventually persistent on a file using
mmap) and mutexes or byte range loking if you want to use a database
style format ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York