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=MtuS/xMpKNUUqYZFZhkc2kFXUXdwwYx7J7BEKZ289WLBQQTu1K73b
	QhLjA6eaoasgyHjOpzoQIIUs4UgE3KAfqJvWak12E5IzbsjTN8HBoO49u+i/xxNy
	ToiInywOoJeZ0s8QHrN7GEEKFF69iUei+oPZTMCqj5PTahYMFM1P0g=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:08:32 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Testers needed:  New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
Message-ID: <20140304080832.GD7236@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20140227094951.GD2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <loom.20140227T134714-188@post.gmane.org> <20140227134632.GG2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <765945729.20140228031219@yandex.ru> <20140228120748.GN2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <1244251265.20140301020854@yandex.ru> <20140303092352.GB26619@calimero.vinschen.de> <231682974.20140303184701@yandex.ru> <20140303150746.GE2469@calimero.vinschen.de> <1863536246.20140304004412@yandex.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LTeJQqWS0MN7I/qa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1863536246.20140304004412@yandex.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

--LTeJQqWS0MN7I/qa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mar  4 00:44, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>=20
> >> I'd need to test it in domain environment,
>=20
> And with sane number of groups (less than 20), the results are barely
> different between different caching strategies (less than 1%, which could
> easily be explained by measurement error), except (again) for the case of
> runing `id' under "db_cache: no", which takes approximately twice as long=
, as
> any other way.=20
>=20
> If you ask me, the choice is between "db_cahce: yes" and "db_cache: full"=
, and
> I don't have solid reason to prefer one over another. Not running with re=
mote
> connection to the domain here...

Ok, thanks.  I guess I'll remove the "db_cache: no" option at one
point.  It just doesn't seem to make sense.


Corinna

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

--LTeJQqWS0MN7I/qa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=qs9g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LTeJQqWS0MN7I/qa--