In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>
> There has to be _some_ solution but it doesn't have to revolve around
> groups. Surely we don't need a separate box for every 16 projects (and
> lets not get into another reason to use Xen :)) )
Group accounts with ssh keys controlli
* Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-26 16:53]:
> On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > What, then, is the correct way to separate the project files of more
> > > > than 16 projects, where some users will need access to all of the
> > > > groups?
> >
> > There has t
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> There has to be _some_ solution but it doesn't have to revolve around
> groups. Surely we don't need a separate box for every 16 projects ...
Again, are these groups only affecting files? Then you may look into
other file systems, such as OpenAFS. In OpenAFS you can us
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:38:51PM -0700, Darren Spruell wrote:
> On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600
On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What, then, is the correct way to separate the project files of more
> > > than 16 projects, where some users will need access to all of the
> > > groups?
>
> There has to be _some_ solution but it doesn't have to revolve around
> group
On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > Well, there is no solution. 16 was chose
On 10/26/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > Well, there is no solution. 16 was chose
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:13AM -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Well, there is no solution. 16 was chosen a lot of years ago as a
> > > reasonable amount of state to car
On 10/25/07, Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Well, there is no solution. 16 was chosen a lot of years ago as a
> > reasonable amount of state to carry around, and that's the standard
> > and we're probably going to st
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:21:32 -0400, "Douglas A. Tutty"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I'm running an OpenBSD server with a lot of users and project groups.
> > > Each project has its own group or two to protect it's files from other
If your are just concerned about files, then (IIRC) OpenAFS can give you
more groups (prob. 20) and if you use PTS then more can be worked out.
However, that would be directory level access and not for individual
files.
-Lars
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I'm running an OpenBSD server with a lot of users and project groups.
> > Each project has its own group or two to protect it's files from other
> > users.
> >
> > How do you guys usually solve this problem when user needs to be
> I'm running an OpenBSD server with a lot of users and project groups.
> Each project has its own group or two to protect it's files from other
> users.
>
> As i know each user can have not greater than 16 groups.
> As the solution, i can change value of NGROUPS_MAX in sys/syslimits.h.
> But it r
13 matches
Mail list logo
