On Feb 20 13:51, Tom Honermann wrote: > On 02/20/2015 12:03 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >Maybe it is actually simpler than that. Invalidating the cache as a > >whole probably never makes sense. In fact there are two reasons for > >invalidation: > > > >- The pw_name, pw_shell, pw_home, pw_gecos settings for a user changed. > > > >- The interface to the DC was broken and there are entries of the type > > Achim mentioned, "DOM+User(RID)". > > > >The first case can only be fixed by invalidating the cache on a regular > >basis. If we didn't fetch the info for a user for, say, 5 minutes, drop > >the entry from the cache and renew the information by asking the DC > >again. > > > >As for the second case, the DOM+User(RID) entries are undesired and > >wrong anyway. So maybe the caching code could do what you said in the > >first place. Invalidate the cache on every network change. But then, > >only invalidate the entries of the aforementioned type. > > That all sounds very reasonable. > > >Care to hack a bit? > > Oh, if only I could. If I had more time available, I'd have to go with more > time to play with my kids (or sleep) :)
Sleep is highly overrated. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpnc4zgrEm0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
