Project review: Parallel KDC
ssorce at redhat.com
Fri Mar 12 11:34:50 EST 2010
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 Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the krbdev