Bug 36285 - Xinet daemon is very slow
Summary: Xinet daemon is very slow
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: xinetd   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 7.0
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Trond Eivind Glomsrxd
QA Contact: David Lawrence
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2001-04-17 16:13 UTC by Bill Farrell
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:32 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-04-17 16:13:53 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Bill Farrell 2001-04-17 16:13:49 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)

> I'm wondering about xinetd for RH7.  I just recently bought and installed
> RH7 (the Pro version) and installed it on a machine that was previously
> running RH6.2.
> After a wee while with the editor rearranging paths (since /etc now has a
> lot of configs in subdirectories) it looked great and I thought I was 
> ready to put it into service.  I really like the new organisation of
> configs...being in subdirectories, one can easily document-as-you-go.
> Then I noticed something weird.  I had two machines, one next to the 
> and even next to one another in the network hub.  From the RH6.2 machine 
> the RH7 machine, pings were running about the expected 0.5ms mark.  Pings
> from RH7 to the RH6.2 machine were running around 300-500ms.  Telnet also
> took an exhorbitant time to connect and performed lackadaisically, even 
> one user connected (me).
> Of course, I'm not at all familiar with the new xinetd and wonder if 
> a tuning issue involved.
> All 20-some of my servers are using a DEC RLT8139-based NIC (which RH 
> to love).  I wound up taking that particular server BACK to 6.2 where it
> performs up-to-snuff.  All the network-related problems disappeared.
> I haven't seen any benches or mentions of xinetd performance as opposed 
> inetd performance.  RH7 stays on the shelf until I can figure out why 
> performs so awfully.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set up a 6.2 machine beside a 7.0 machine
2. From the 6.2 machine, ping the 7.0 machine.  Note times.
3. From the 7.0 machine, ping the 6.2 machine.  Note times.
4. Try loading heavy web pages from each.  Make a nasty one with lots of 
graphics and crap.  Note which loads faster (6.2 every time).

Actual Results:  The 6.2 machine served faster and more reliably.  The 7.0 
machine tended to hang under heavy loads.

Expected Results:  7.0 should have served identically or better.

Please feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to go re-create the 

The machine composition upon which I was running 7.0 was:
AMD K6/3 800MHz CPU, 196M RAM, 60G of IDE disk (2x30G), ATI RAGE-II video 
(no desktop, bare server).

Comment 1 Trond Eivind Glomsrxd 2001-04-17 18:11:05 UTC
1) 7.1 should have better performance than 7 out-of-the-box
   One important change is when in the process access control is implemented
2) remove /etc/hosts.{allow,deny}, use "only_from" inside the xinetd config files
   or even better - firewalling

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.