From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 10 06:59:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1815B16A4CE for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from anon.securenym.net (anon.securenym.net [209.113.101.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1911D43D28 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:59:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dincht@securenym.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by anon.securenym.net (8.11.7/8.11.7) id hBAEseP19378 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org.filtered; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:54:40 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200312101454.hBAEseP19378@anon.securenym.net> X-Securenym: dincht From: "C. Ulrich" To: jonathan In-Reply-To: <001801c3bea6$30013560$3400a8c0@php> References: <001801c3bea6$30013560$3400a8c0@php> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: The Peter Jennings Fan Club Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:51:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: group file limits X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:59:43 -0000 On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 17:45, jonathan wrote: > Hi, I'm running a freebsd 4.8 data server on an intranet. > > There is many group (10 and more will come) and a lot of members (10-12 by group) into them... So i'm having big trouble with the fact that 'pw' doesn't read further than 1024 characters into the '/etc/group' file. > > Is there a way to bypass that limit? > > Or a better way of managing many groups on freebsd? > > I really need to solve this... any help will be a miracle! You might want to take a look at using ACLs (Access Control Lists) instead of groups to manage your users. Unfortunately, ACLs appear to be new to FreeBSD 5.x, so if this is for a production environment, you may have to kludge your way around until 5.x is in STABLE. Unless, of course, you're willing to run a 5.x release in a production environment, which is usually quite doable and problem-free, but never deliberately recommended. Charles Ulrich -- http://bityard.net