Re: [9fans] Re: [sources] 20070410: % cat

["Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.odell@gmail.com>]

2007/4/13, Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>:
> > Then you need two different sets of policy files and to have your
> > initialisation bind the right ones into place.  I'm doing this now for
> > a set of diverse machines with different keys, policies, etc. all
> > sharing a single file server.
>
> That does not contradict my statement that it does not scale.  Much as
> I appreciate the philosophical value of bind/mount, a trillion
> instances of a configuration file are going to be unmanageable.  Ron
> is right that there is no slick solution, but it's worth knowing that
> the current approach deserves exploring further.
>
> ++L

Do you know anybody who has ever come up with a better idea? This is
very similar to Maildir replacing mbox. It sounds good, but when you
have 250k messages, it ends up being slower simply to traverse the
directory. In FreeBSD anyway.

However, it does scale. Much, much better than a case where you have
the same requirement for thousands of systems in a switch () statment.

--dho