[PATCH] Fix Name mangling in HEAD
abartlet at pcug.org.au
Mon Mar 25 12:36:05 GMT 2002
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Sorry Andrew but reverting back to 2.2 code is not the way to go on my
> opinion, I made that code to solve many problems and bugs that apperead
> in 2.2. code. The way to go is that me and tridge discussed on IRC, eg:
I'm increasing of the opinion that the 2.2 approach is the only valid
way to do this. We need an approach that scales with the size of the
server - and your mangling TDB *DOES NOT*.
The results are quite painful - and I know the code was completely
*untested* (It caused quite a few problems at my site - hence this and
previous patches). Even moving to a larger hash presents *major* issues
in scaleability - your mangling DB would have to be the same order of
magnitude as the whole filesystem's combined metadata!
Worse still, a mangling TDB does not reflect changes in the filesystem -
we keep stale entries around *for ever*.
> change the code to use a hash instead of numbering as windows (2k at
> least) does after a few similar entries (five).
> windows do this:
> we would do this:
> the number of letters that will be used will be based on a configurable
> option (1 to 7).
> We need to keep the a tdb as base but make an in meory cache to spead up
As I explain above: in memory cache is fine, larger hash is fine, but
persistent DB just doesn't work. A cross-smbd cache could work, but
might just loose all the caching benefits all together.
> And above all move everything to VFS and merge in also the case
> sensitivity handling.
Yes, it would be good to be able to make this 'somebody else's problem'
- new VFS modules can consider this stuff in their design etc.
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
More information about the samba-technical