DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=Y92g4pSaGW5V5wSJ22MWzEaRoLBYoLVZ1HW2b140PkXnVgOiQPAp7
	roQbxNRsmdKZ7t0HTOyinJ6mAbSbv2E1hFKD7FcgppjTc+SfMdVAe9ltTHY5Ttha
	pP3CL7xH6yzc57YueOqZgFuK1t5z5oqUzHrY5yAPEz6bSTUMiZaC3o=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:03:14 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: How big are your /etc/passwd and /etc/group files?
Message-ID: <20140131220314.GH2821@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20140131203738.GA8707@calimero.vinschen.de> <CAKf2h5R-FuQX9W=ojw4+ez8gqOHjwYshMh3FmmfNu3r12sRFeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qnK4RqISe3HuYx1/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKf2h5R-FuQX9W=ojw4+ez8gqOHjwYshMh3FmmfNu3r12sRFeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

--qnK4RqISe3HuYx1/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jan 31 22:40, Frank Fesevur wrote:
> 2014-01-31 Corinna Vinschen:
> >   Is anybody here who's using /etc/passwd and/or group files
> >   of more than 16K in size?
>=20
> We don't go over 16K.
>=20
> On our server 101 rows result in 12k in /etc/passwd. Doing the basic
> math I would say anyone in a AD-environment with over ~135 rows is
> likely to get over 16K.

Right, but only if the passwd and group files really contain lots of
entries.  In theory it was always a good idea not to keep all of
`mkpasswd -l -d' in the file, if you have a big domain.

As I said, my patch removes the need to keep passwd and group files
around at all, but for backward compatibility we'd
have to read the existing files nevertheless and the content would
have precedence over the stuff loaded directly from Windows.

That's what gives me the problem.  The new way to store the stuff would
make Cygwin definitely faster, but it would struggle with... uhm...
2.6 Megs file on the 32 bit version of Cygwin,

Hmm.  I'm wondering how to solve that elegantly.


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--qnK4RqISe3HuYx1/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=Bs6X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qnK4RqISe3HuYx1/--