| 1 |
On 11/11/2021 12.48, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> We could: |
| 5 |
>>> - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example, |
| 6 |
>>> 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> +1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides doing so. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> Could you elaborate why the range 500-799 only leaves us with 200 IDs? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> We still need some range for dynamic allocation. Currently that is |
| 13 |
> 500..999, and would be reduced to 800..999. That seems to be on the low |
| 14 |
> side already. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Thanks. I simply missed the "for dynamic allocation" part in your |
| 17 |
initial mail. :/ |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> In any case, 300 additional IDs may not be future proof at the rate |
| 21 |
> we're currently allocating them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I am not so sure about that. Looking at the git log of uid-gid.txt there |
| 24 |
have been 3 allocations in the last 3 months. And around 4 months ago, |
| 25 |
conikost allocated a lot of IDs, which probably lead to the ID space |
| 26 |
exhaustion we are seeing. But I believe it could be possible that the ID |
| 27 |
allocation rate now stays low because we probably allocated IDs for most |
| 28 |
current use-cases now. So maybe the simplest and safest bet is to open |
| 29 |
the range from 500-799 for static IDs. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But I don't have a strong opinion on that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
- Flow |
Archives