On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 10:24 -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 15:24 -0400, Sean E. Millichamp wrote: > > This optimization reduces the runtime by more then half on SELinux-enabled > > systems in some informal performance testing I have been doing. > > > > It would be an even bigger win for anyone managing files on a filesystem > > where > > stat()s are particularly expensive (such as GFS). > > Out of curiosity, do you know if using libselinux instead of shelling > out would make this even faster ? It should, since it will also save a > lot of forks ...
That is a good point, I suspect it will. Maybe I should try that first. The original patch the work was based on used the command line tools and I decided I wanted to keep using the command line tools to allow support on systems that (for whatever reason) didn't (or, couldn't easily) have the ruby-selinux bindings installed. I should probably grab the bindings and do some tests with them before spending a lot of time on caching. In any event, given the complexities Luke brought to light, I don't think it is reasonable to try to include either caching or the ruby libselinux bindings in 0.24.6 (given the intended release schedule). Sean --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
