MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096769244

Authentication and Performance Issues On A Large Scale Samba Service

2000· article· en· W7096769244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCacheAuthentication (law)PasswordGroup PolicyInternet Authentication ServiceServerService (business)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the University of Alberta, we have approximately 55,000 user id’s using central services authenticated by Kerberos. We use AFS for central file service. We use Samba to provide Windows compatible access to much of our central file service. Samba contains a number of useful features for Microsoft Windows compatibility, including a kludge to deal with the problem of Windows sending an all uppercase version of a user’s password. We observed that when Windows connects to a share, it frequently attempts many incorrect passwords repeatedly before trying the correct one. This created a very heavy authentication load on our central Samba service when users would connect every morning and authenticate. We observed this load and noticed that most of our problems were caused by repeated attempts to authenticate, and the high cost of checking these attempts. To help reduce the load due to authentication, we implemented FOKSTRAUT, a set of modifications to Samba to cache recent password failures and successes in a DBM database built by the Samba server as it runs. By caching the recent failures we avoid expensive re-checks of the (many) other passwords Windows likes to send us. We also cache the correct case of the real

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207