This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Testers needed: New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
- From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon at yandex dot ru>
- To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 03:12:19 +0400
- Subject: Re: Testers needed: New passwd/group handling in Cygwin
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140225200414 dot GA4238 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <87y50zaqjb dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20140225215423 dot GA6065 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <loom dot 20140226T085959-119 at post dot gmane dot org> <20140226100209 dot GR2246 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20140226135222 dot GW2246 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <loom dot 20140227T095414-414 at post dot gmane dot org> <loom dot 20140227T100638-8 at post dot gmane dot org> <20140227094951 dot GD2246 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <loom dot 20140227T134714-188 at post dot gmane dot org> <20140227134632 dot GG2246 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>> > 1 second? That sounds still a bit slow. Considering that I'm now
>> > member of 414 groups, and you are member of 440 groups, the extra number
>> > of groups cannot account for that.
>> >
>> > This sounds surprisingly as if the
>> > names of some of your groups are not cached on your machine. Or
>> > something. Or is this a rather slow machine?!?
>>
>> It's not a slow machine by any means, but it certainly gets its fair share
>> of security policies, so it may have something to do with that. I don't know.
>>
>> > Still, it seems like the right thing to do to drop the group name
>> > configuration stuff entirely.
>>
>> Yes (unless you'd want to make it configurable like the getpwent stuff).
> Nah, not really. As I said, I'm questioning some of the old functionality
> anyway, and the less we have to ask AD the better for us.
> I applied my patch which removes this group name change facility from AD
> and uploaded a new snapshot to http://cygwin.com/snapshots/.
> While we're at it, I just had this weird idea.
> What if, as soon as the first Cygwin process in a process tree starts,
> this process not only caches the primary group info, but also caches all
> supplementary groups from the user's token? This would slow down
> startup of the first process slightly, but it would speed up any
> subsequent request for group information of a group in the user's token.
> An `id' call would be almost instant, and `ls' calls would probably be
> faster as well.
Umhm. I'd have to see, how slightly. Because my primary use of Cygwin tools
does not expect to have a parent Cygwin process. (I.e. diff'ing between
file manager panels.)
> As always, there's a trade-off: Users running cygwin processes from CMD
> a lot would encounter a slowdown.
> What do you think, guys?
Needs some tests. I would certainly appreciate faster initial startups, but if
the delay is manageable, I can cope with more long-term friendly approach.
I've got entangled in current work and lost track of snapshots for now.
If there's some DEF's in library, that I can toggle and rebuild it with certain
features enabled and disable for local test, I'd be glad to have a round at it
over weekend.
--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@yandex.ru) 28.02.2014, <03:06>
Sorry for my terrible english...
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple