On Dec 21 14:22, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> On 23.10.2015 14:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 23 14:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Oct 23 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
> >>>I don't have much time to test it right now (and won't have any time at all
> >>>next week), but so far things look good. The
On 23.10.2015 14:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 14:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 23 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
I don't have much time to test it right now (and won't have any time at all
next week), but so far things look good. The problem with the 0.2 test
version with UID/GID mapp
Corinna Vinschen writes:
> Ok, thanks a lot. I'm just wondering if I should really push this to
> stable state, given the fact that I won't be available starting next
> week until 2016-01-06.
Well, that looks like it might be a common schedule for other folks as
well, so you might just hold off u
On Dec 6 15:29, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> >> VPN access with the worst possible terrestrial roundtrip has been tested
> >> for the same case now and goes from 52s to ~1700s or a factor of 33. So
> >> roundtrip delay adds an additional factor of about 3, but the server
> >> r
Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> VPN access with the worst possible terrestrial roundtrip has been tested
>> for the same case now and goes from 52s to ~1700s or a factor of 33. So
>> roundtrip delay adds an additional factor of about 3, but the server
>> response time seems to play the dominant role e
On Dec 6 10:58, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Achim Gratz writes:
> > On my local laptop things look a bit different, a small ~5% subset of the
> > test above goes from 20s to 200s and a different larger ~10% subset from 50s
> > to 500s. While that hurts, the more usual case with many files from the
> > s
Achim Gratz writes:
> On my local laptop things look a bit different, a small ~5% subset of the
> test above goes from 20s to 200s and a different larger ~10% subset from 50s
> to 500s. While that hurts, the more usual case with many files from the
> same user doesn't feel any slower at the moment
On Oct 27 10:53, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 27.10.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> >>That test is almost as bad as it can ever get. Given that enumerating all
> >>AD accouts with mkpasswd takes about 2 hours and I'm doing something very
> >>similar here, I'm not even surprised. I was more s
Am 27.10.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
That test is almost as bad as it can ever get. Given that enumerating all
AD accouts with mkpasswd takes about 2 hours and I'm doing something very
similar here, I'm not even surprised. I was more surprised to see the
server go so fast, but my gu
On Oct 26 17:03, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 26.10.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> >Erm, really? I tested this locally with a directory with hundreds
> >of files, each of which belonged to another user or group, and that
> >resulted in a 25% slowdown. Not 1000%. Oh boy.
>
> That test is a
Am 26.10.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
Erm, really? I tested this locally with a directory with hundreds
of files, each of which belonged to another user or group, and that
resulted in a 25% slowdown. Not 1000%. Oh boy.
That test is almost as bad as it can ever get. Given that enu
On Oct 23 14:01, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes:
> > There's, as usual, a downside: AuthZ leans a bit to the slow side.
>
> It's not too bad, as long as your network connection is fast (and fast means
> short roundtrip time for an AD query). If I take each page fault as
Corinna Vinschen cygwin.com> writes:
> There's, as usual, a downside: AuthZ leans a bit to the slow side.
It's not too bad, as long as your network connection is fast (and fast means
short roundtrip time for an AD query). If I take each page fault as
reported by time as a proxy for an AD access,
On Oct 23 14:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 23 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > I don't have much time to test it right now (and won't have any time at all
> > next week), but so far things look good. The problem with the 0.2 test
> > version with UID/GID mapping and not recognizing the primary
On Oct 23 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
> I don't have much time to test it right now (and won't have any time at all
> next week), but so far things look good. The problem with the 0.2 test
> version with UID/GID mapping and not recognizing the primary domain in some
> cases is gone (might have been
I don't have much time to test it right now (and won't have any time at all
next week), but so far things look good. The problem with the 0.2 test
version with UID/GID mapping and not recognizing the primary domain in some
cases is gone (might have been a fluke anyway). Correlating the output fro
Hi Cygwin friends and users,
I released a new TEST version of Cygwin, 2.3.0-0.4.
This test release contains all Cygwin-related patches applied during
and after my vacation. Other than that, the original intention,
testing the "new POSIX ACL handling reloaded" code, still applies.
This is the "
17 matches
Mail list logo
