From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 21 06:37:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA13725 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us [207.33.75.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA13707; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (abelits@localhost) by phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA13412; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:40:05 -0700 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:40:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Belits To: Yves Lepage cc: Vinay Bannai , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Need a common passwd file among machines In-Reply-To: <199704211328.JAA07167@maelstrom.cc.mcgill.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Yves Lepage wrote: > In surface this is right. However, NIS does database lookups instead of sequential > file access (non-FreeBSD systems) and that's one of the better reasons of existence > of NIS. With a few thousands of users, sequential search becomes rather heavy. indexed database can be used just fine locally. > > IMO, NIS is fine, given you have reliable networks and reliable servers and at > least one slave. Networks can be reliable, but if any network problem makes large parts of network inoperable just because they can't access authentication server, overall fault tolerance of the network becomes too low, especially for ISPs. -- Alex