Thanks to Jerome Berkman, Chris Adams, Richard Jackson, and Mark
Scarborough for the following summary information:
* The nobody account (65534 on a "fresh" 4.0F system, technically a uid of
-2) has been around for a long time, and has worked fine.
* Several people reported using 0-64K uids with no problems
* Chris Adams reminded us that there are 32K directory limitations that
require workarounds (we're already using /x/y/user hashing for
everything).
cheers and thanks,
________________________________________________________________________
Ian 'Ivo' Veach, imail_at_nevada.edu UCCSN System Computing Services
http://www.nevada.edu/~ivo postmaster/webmaster/sysadmin
________________________________________________________________________
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:36:34 -0700, Ian 'Ivo' Veach <ivo_at_scsr.nevada.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there -
> >
> > We've got a recent initiative that is going to push our user base past 32K
> > per server, and are looking into solutions. Although we may go to
> > extended UIDs at some point, we're looking into quick solutions to get the
> > job done now. We are running AS1000's and 4000's, 4.0F, currently NOT
> > clustered, with typical login/mail/web applications. To that end:
> >
> > Anyone had any issues with using unsigned int UIDs (0-64K) on Tru64 4.0F
> > (or laters)? Tests so far (*pwuid() calls, ssh, wrappers, sendmail,
> > imap/pop) have shown no issues, but I was hoping to tap into the wealth of
> > experience on this list.
> >
> > Perhaps one more question: should we not bother with this, and go right to
> > extended UID's? Anyone done this (in non-clustered config) and care to
> > share experiences?
Received on Tue Jul 10 2001 - 00:33:55 NZST