> > And, yes, adding a warning that large sites may have performance
> > issues with these settings would be good.
>
> Oh, ok. Yes, no objections.
The point then becomes: should we close #38625 with that fix ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tags 368251 pending
thanks
Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > And, yes, adding a warning that large sites may have performance
> > > issues with these settings would be good.
> >
> > Oh, ok. Yes, no objections.
>
> The point then becomes: should we close #38625 with that fix
> Problem: we currently have no etch branch..:)
Of course we have one. My SVN copy was just outdated..:)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:23:45AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> As a winbind user, I think that these should be interesting defaults
> to add to the default smb.conf, yes.
> We can't do anything for existing configurations. Adding options to an
> existing smb.conf (during an upgrade) is reall
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:23:45AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
As a winbind user, I think that these should be interesting defaults
to add to the default smb.conf, yes.
We can't do anything for existing configurations. Adding options to an
existing smb.conf (during a
>> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults upstream?
>
> If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large sites.
Seems to me that this is what I heard once in Jerry Carter's mouth, yes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:47:13AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults upstream?
> > If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large sites.
> Seems to me that this is what I heard once in Jerry Carter's mouth, yes.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:57:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:47:13AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > >> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults
> > >> upstream?
>
> > > If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large
>
> > That sounds like a good reason to me, and doesn't seem like something
> > we should override in the Debian package?
>
> Perhaps add the options commented out and with a warning that large
> sites may get a performance hit?
My proposal was inded to add these option as part of the *currently
c
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:05:19PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > That sounds like a good reason to me, and doesn't seem like something
> > > we should override in the Debian package?
> > Perhaps add the options commented out and with a warning that large
> > sites may get a performance hit
10 matches
Mail list logo
