Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:05:41 +0800 From: "Wilkinson, Alex" <alex.wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SEC:ULarger NGROUPS_MAX in CURRENT ? Ready for 7.0-R ? Message-ID: <20070816030540.GO11649@obelix.dsto.defence.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.999.0708151039340.98070@qbhto.arg> References: <20070812114017.GA93036@obelix.dsto.defence.gov.au> <20070815104929.GJ11649@obelix.dsto.defence.gov.au> <f9vc51$9vi$1@sea.gmane.org> <alpine.BSF.0.999.0708151039340.98070@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
0n Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:40:07AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> AFAIK the only problem with this is that NFS will fail with larger
>> number of groups, so (for those not using NFS) why not make the number
>> of groups an item in kernel configurations and make a compile-time and
>> module-load-time checks for this in the NFS code?
>
>Sure, we look forward to reviewing your patches.
Linux has done some interesting work with respect to this. They have implemented
"Dynamic Allocation of Groups Array When Required" [http://lwn.net/Articles/50916/].
And can allocate up to:
#cat /proc/sys/kernel/ngroups_max
65536
I thought NFSv4 no longer has the 16 group limitation ?
-aW
IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence Organisation and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the CRIMES ACT 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070816030540.GO11649>