Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20030314005340.007f77f0@incoming.verizon.net>
X-Sender: vze1u1tg AT incoming DOT verizon DOT net
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:53:40 -0500
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
Subject: Re: cygwin-1.3.21-1, problem with sparse file creation as
  default
In-Reply-To: <20030314053640.GB12940@redhat.com>
References: <20030314024154 DOT GA33739617 AT hpn5170x>
 <3E70AD52 DOT 744 DOT D4BC055 AT localhost>
 <000801c2e974$0a0541b0$78d96f83 AT pomello>
 <20030314024154 DOT GA33739617 AT hpn5170x>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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/