Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:39:23 +0200 | From | Xuan Baldauf <> | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: NFSv4 ACLs (was: ...ACL's and reiser...) |
| |
"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/
| |