"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:07:47 +0200
> From: Xuan Baldauf <xuan--reiserfs@baldauf.org>
>
> Is path checking really a performance impact? (Most of the time, for
> finding a file by filename, you need to walk the directory tree, what
> else?)
>
> No, most of the time you don't need to walk the directory tree. Think
> "relative pathnames". If my current working directory is
>
> /usr/home/tytso/bar/win32/acl/semantics/are/really/really/really
>
> and I open the file "stupid", I don't have to either traverse all of the
> directories down to the pathname, and I don't have to do any permissions
> checks in all of the parent directories of the cwd.
For inheriting ACLs, you do not have to traverse all the path components
either, because you can use your cached resolved ACLs for your cwd
".../really", can't you?
> In NT ACL's, you do
> have to check the acl's of *ALL* the parent directories, all the way up
> to the root.
Is that true? If ACLs are dynamic in NT, why do have I wait when updating
thousands of files below one directory? *wonder*
>
> "Dynamic Inhertance" is a disastrous idea from a performance
> perspective. Fortunately, as near as I can tell, NFSV4 does *not*
> support this.
>
>
> - Ted
Xuân. :o)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:29 EST