According to the redhat/fedora doc on this subject is to suggesting that sssd is not meant to run with nscd but could be ran with nscd caching host only and rest to sssd. Curious to hear of lists opinions on this setup. Benefits of not runnig nscd at all and run sssd only and use no nscd at all.
Cheers,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Daniel Jung wrote:
According to the redhat/fedora doc on this subject is to suggesting that sssd is not meant to run with nscd but could be ran with nscd caching host only and rest to sssd. Curious to hear of lists opinions on this setup. Benefits of not runnig nscd at all and run sssd only and use no nscd at all.
Yes. I've run it in that mode, and had no bother. In the end, I switched to dnsmasq running locally, as nscd's caching of host data is, as far as I knew, totally crap.
jh
Thanks! And totally agree with nscd being a crap
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, John Hodrien J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Daniel Jung wrote:
According to the redhat/fedora doc on this subject is to suggesting that
sssd is not meant to run with nscd but could be ran with nscd caching host only and rest to sssd. Curious to hear of lists opinions on this setup. Benefits of not runnig nscd at all and run sssd only and use no nscd at all.
Yes. I've run it in that mode, and had no bother. In the end, I switched to dnsmasq running locally, as nscd's caching of host data is, as far as I knew, totally crap.
jh
-- John Hodrien Specialist IT and Unix, IT Faculty of Engineering 0113 3435471 9.26 EC Stoner _______________________________________________ sssd-users mailing list sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
On 06/11/2014 08:06 AM, Daniel Jung wrote:
Thanks! And totally agree with nscd being a crap
SSSD provides fast caching of users and groups similar to nscd. For other maps you have to decide what tool is best. Nscd is an option but we really want to hear about the reason why it is needed. dnsmasq is a preferred solution for hosts.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk mailto:J.H.Hodrien@leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Daniel Jung wrote: According to the redhat/fedora doc on this subject is to suggesting that sssd is not meant to run with nscd but could be ran with nscd caching host only and rest to sssd. Curious to hear of lists opinions on this setup. Benefits of not runnig nscd at all and run sssd only and use no nscd at all. Yes. I've run it in that mode, and had no bother. In the end, I switched to dnsmasq running locally, as nscd's caching of host data is, as far as I knew, totally crap. jh -- John Hodrien Specialist IT and Unix, IT Faculty of Engineering 0113 3435471 9.26 EC Stoner _______________________________________________ sssd-users mailing list sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org <mailto:sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
sssd-users mailing list sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 13:29 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 06/11/2014 08:06 AM, Daniel Jung wrote:
Thanks! And totally agree with nscd being a crap
SSSD provides fast caching of users and groups similar to nscd. For other maps you have to decide what tool is best. Nscd is an option but we really want to hear about the reason why it is needed. dnsmasq is a preferred solution for hosts.
Actually in Fedora we are proposing to install unbound by default as caching name server because it can do DNSSEC properly.
So in general we favor a proper DNS caching daemon over nscd.
Simo.
Thats very interesting. Have you seen noticeable improvement using outbound vs nscd from performance ?
Thanks
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Simo Sorce simo@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 13:29 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 06/11/2014 08:06 AM, Daniel Jung wrote:
Thanks! And totally agree with nscd being a crap
SSSD provides fast caching of users and groups similar to nscd. For other maps you have to decide what tool is best. Nscd is an option but we really want to hear about the reason why it is needed. dnsmasq is a preferred solution for hosts.
Actually in Fedora we are proposing to install unbound by default as caching name server because it can do DNSSEC properly.
So in general we favor a proper DNS caching daemon over nscd.
Simo.
-- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
sssd-users mailing list sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 21:30 +0200, Daniel Jung wrote:
Thats very interesting. Have you seen noticeable improvement using outbound vs nscd from performance ?
I haven't really measured, but certainly you get an improvement in correctness (with the caveat that integration scripts/daemons for roaming laptops are still not perfect, but for statically configured servers I've seen no big issues).
Simo.
sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Daniel Jung -
Dmitri Pal -
John Hodrien -
Michael Ströder -
Simo Sorce