So if you don't see any problems with this solution, I'll give it a try on
the first chance that I have and update.

Thanks for help and prompt replies!
David


On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Volker Lendecke
<volker.lende...@sernet.de>wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:37:09PM +0300, David wrote:
> > Thanks for all your help and I'm sorry if I'm being a nag, but I have to
> > check all my options before moving on using nfsv4 authorization.
> > I quickly setup a test server with the same configuration like on my prod
> > environment, and I found that if remove gpfs module from the "vfs object"
> > option line, I can see the permissions and get the proper permissions
> from
> > the acls entries. (just like in example I sent at the begging)
> >
> > If this resolves my problem, is there a reason why not using this
> solution?
> > It also don't come up with what you wrote before which totally make sense
> to
> > me...
>
> I never used GPFS with posix ACLs, and I *thought* from the
> mere existence of the special ACL API in gpfs.h that these
> calls are required.
>
> If it works fine now, perfect. Sorry for the noise, just
> ignore me.
>
> Volker
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpdwe4ACgkQbsgDfmnSbrb4jwCggx7+RqxCcQjBk9ZWpjLBHdlD
> +wgAnj8Xg6yZdBvXAo4tbWs6bcHZK6Ol
> =wKTS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Reply via email to