David Collier-Brown wrote:
> And yes, this is exactly the case, the list is getting truncated
> on Solaris 9.

Ive been thinking about the way that Windows uses groups
in large numbers on large sites, and have a question
and a thought.

Am I correct in thinking the Samba team was one of the
proponents of larger number of groups in Linux, as
implied by http://lwn.net/Articles/50916 ?

Does that perhaps mean that folks with older
Unixes (Solarii, BSDs, HP/UX, AIX, etc, etc)
are still banging up against this on \large sites
with AD and large numbers of NT groups?

If so, should the limited set of groups
that Unix allows perhaps be used as a cache of the
recently-used groups? For example, if a
user attempts to open a file belonging to
group 17, and they only have 0-16 in their group
list, should samba toss out the least
recently used group, stick 17 in its
place and retry the open?

David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@canada.sun.com | -- Mark Twain