Yeah this is SOP for NIS-based orgs with large groups. I wouldn't even
call it a hack at this point, it's been in use so long.
Paul Krizak 7171 Southwest Pkwy MS B200.3A
MTS Systems Engineer Austin, TX 78735
Advanced Micro Devices Desk: (512) 602-8775
Linux/Unix Systems Engineering Cell: (512) 791-0686
Global IT Infrastructure Fax: (512) 602-0468
On 12/01/11 11:17, Iain Morrison wrote:
Hi Jason,
we had this problem with groups in NIS under RHEL4, and whilst it may
be a bug in RHEL 6.1 the workaround we use might work for you.
[The length of one entry is limited by the NIS protocol to 1024
characters.]
-------------------
There is another way of solving this problem for /etc/group entries.
This idea is from Ken Cameron:
1. Break the entry into more than one line and name each group
slightly differently.
2. Keep the GID the same for all.
3. Have the first entry with the right group name and the GID.
I don't put any user names in this one.
What happens is that going by user name you pick up the GID when the
code
reads it. Then going the other way it stops after the first match of GID
and takes that name. It's ugly but works!
------------------------
so for example we have
largegroup:x:1234:
largegroup1:x:1234:uname01,uname02,...
largegroup2:x:1234:uname31,uname31,...
largegroup3:x:1234:uname61,uname61,...
largegroup4:x:1234:
largegroup5:x:1234:
thanks
iain
--
Iain Morrison
IT Manager
MRC Epidemiology Unit
Institute of Metabolic Science
Box 285
Addenbrooke's Hospital
Hills Road
Cambridge
CB2 0QQ
Tel 01223 769200
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Keltz
Sent: 01 December 2011 18:08
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) discussion mailing-list
Subject: [rhelv6-list] maximum member unix group in /etc/group
Under RHEL4, as far as I can see, there was no limitation in unix group
size in /etc/group in terms of line lengths or number of users, or at
least I never came close to hitting the limit. Under RHEL6.1, I hit the
limit today - 126 members. It's not clear if this is a bug or a
feature, or why such a limitation would be imposed. It's possible that
it was imposed by a patch, but after applying many patches, it's not
clear which would have caused it. Any ideas???
Jason.
_______________________________________________
rhelv6-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv6-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv6-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv6-list
