From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <9ab217670704130725k7baf92b3ve84862ec71130a14@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:25:28 -0400 From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: "Lucio De Re" , "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: [sources] 20070410: % cat In-Reply-To: <4e483a4a1847f6ddc09e55219ca67f11@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <12a554de22f1992874430323d774bd88@plan9.bell-labs.com> <4e483a4a1847f6ddc09e55219ca67f11@proxima.alt.za> Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46955594-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2007/4/13, Lucio De Re : > > 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