Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/14/00:54:06
At 12:36 AM 3/14/2003 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:41:55PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:20:10PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>We've had no proof of advantages (except in one very restricted corner
>>>case), and no disproof of disadvantages (i.e. speed penalties).
>>
>>Running a speed test would be interesting of course, but I point to an
>>advantage for most of us: with 32 bit uids the /var/log/lastlog file
>>can become enormous. Fortunately (for systems that support sparse
>>files), it is sparse.
>
>I think we'll have to come up with some other way of dealing with
>/var/log/lastlog for Win 9x though, won't we?
Chris,
9x is not a real problem because there is no reason to use large
uids (mkpasswd won't), although we can't stop users from trying.
I am more concerned about old NTs without sparse file support in
some corporate environments, where mkpasswd may introduce large uids.
I don't fully understand when sparse file support was introduced.
By the way, you are right that there is something funny about unlink
with FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE on Win9x, for read-only files.
I don't see the problem in 1.3.21, but don't let it creep in an
eventual 1.3.22 until further notice.
Pierre
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -