NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT - Where are those NFS problems?
From: Andre Guibert de Bruet (andy_at_siliconlandmark.com)
Date: 05/31/05
- Previous message: Daniel Eischen: "Re: [CFR] correct type of addrinfo.ai_addrlen and netent.n_net"
- Next in thread: Robert Watson: "Re: NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT - Where are those NFS problems?"
- Reply: Robert Watson: "Re: NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT - Where are those NFS problems?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:08:45 -0400 (EDT) To: current@freebsd.org
Hi,
This question gets asked over and over on the various lists [*], but I
have yet to see an answer other than "We are not sure, and it is probably
not worth it" or "don't hike it too high, performance degradation might
occur":
"Why doesn't CURRENT have NGROUPS_MAX set to 32 or 64?"
The issue with xucred makes sense for the stable branches, but I am not
sure that the same compat guarantees are provided for current. I have used
local diffs to 64 for a number of years and have yet to run into issues.
I have read about fireworks with NFS, and I guess I am confuzed by why
this would would be the case. My "normal use" of NFS on system with users
in many groups never seems to have turned up any problems. The following
was done on an NFS client system with NGROUPS set to 64 and a server with
16 in an NFS-mounted directory.
%id; echo "test" > testing; sync; ls -l testing; cat testing;
uid=1028(andy) gid=101(users) groups=101(users), 0(wheel), 102(src),
106(crevil), 108(nmap), 109(osinc), 110(toast), 112(fpjet),
114(rose), 115(mysql), 116(khendon), 117(ffchat), 120(cdcas),
121(masus), 122(stukings), 123(uppersixth), 124(brits), 125(ncom),
126(slems), 128(architects), 129(parlane), 132(bounce),
133(cryogen), 134(bikes), 135(enterprise), 136(sort), 137(bcomp),
138(btestsite), 140(openj), 141(mmouse), 142(ctbm), 143(realm)
-rw-r--r-- 1 andy wheel 5 May 25 20:17 testing
test
As you can see, the output is as one would expect. I would love to provide
patches / testing on this "issue" but I can't seem to reproduce it.
Thanks,
Andy
[*]: References:
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2003-12/1135.html
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=179810+0+archive/2001/freebsd-current/20011007.freebsd-current
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2003-December/028661.html
http://news.gw.com/freebsd.standards/5
http://adam.kungfoohampster.com/lists/freebsd-questions/msg02574.shtml
/* Andre Guibert de Bruet * 6f43 6564 7020 656f 2e74 4220 7469 6a20 */
/* Code poet / Sysadmin * 636f 656b 2e79 5320 7379 6461 696d 2e6e */
/* GSM: +1 734 846 8758 * 5520 494e 2058 6c73 7565 6874 002e 0000 */
/* WWW: siliconlandmark.com * Tormenting bytes since 1980. */
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Daniel Eischen: "Re: [CFR] correct type of addrinfo.ai_addrlen and netent.n_net"
- Next in thread: Robert Watson: "Re: NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT - Where are those NFS problems?"
- Reply: Robert Watson: "Re: NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT - Where are those NFS problems?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
