Hi again, Just an update, my production servers switched to work with this settings for several days now, and all seems OK. I didn't found any reason why not using this this setting ("vfs objects = fileid") while working with gpfs and posix acl's so I'll keep it that way. If I notice problems, I'll update....I hope not.
Thanks, David On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David <david.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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