Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
>> I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people
>> want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@,
>> everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions will override the requested
>> m
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people
> want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@,
> everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions will override the requested
> mode of the application. If no
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
>> I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this
>> sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to "sell" if it's not the
>> default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably
>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this
> sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to "sell" if it's not the
> default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably
> on a fs-by-fs basis like eve
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 18:11 -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> > I think it is a misnomer to call the current
> > implementation of ZFS a "pure ACL" system, as clearly the ACLs are heavily
> > contaminated by legacy mode bits.
>
> Feel free to open an RFE. It may be a tough sell with PSARC, but m
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> Feel free to open an RFE. It may be a tough sell with PSARC, but maybe
> if we have enough customer requests maybe they can be won over.
Considering how long ZFS has been out, if no one has complained about it
before, it's most likely that (as is of
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
>> That is not correct. The deny entries are necessary for POSIX semantics.
>> In POSIX are only allowed to pick up permissions from the owner, group or
>> other class. You can't pick up part of the permissions you are lookin
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> That is not correct. The deny entries are necessary for POSIX semantics.
> In POSIX are only allowed to pick up permissions from the owner, group or
> other class. You can't pick up part of the permissions you are looking
> for from the group class
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
>> this behavior is only possible from a Windows client. When creating
>> files from unix the POSIX rules apply and the requestors mode must be
>> honored, which results in the owner@, group@, and everyone@ entries
>> always b
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Jens Elkner wrote:
> We already lost this functionality with the introduction of the NFSv4
> ACL crap on ZFS and earned a lot of "hate you" feedbacks.
I was actually looking forward to ZFS ACLs, as they should have been much
more compatible with Samba/Windows clients. Unfortu
Jens Elkner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:57AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>>> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
>>> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:57AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
> > home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>
> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
E.g., how would one
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
> You can get "support" for SXDE. Perhaps you already have it.
> http://www.sun.com/service/subscriptions/sxde.xml
We have a ton of hardware under Silver/Gold support, quite likely we might
already qualify for this, although I was previously unaware of i
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Rocky wrote:
> I run a few NetApp boxes, must admit I've never noticed the ACL mapping
> sucking before. How does yours suck?
It's been almost a year since we evaluated Netapp, I'm a little hazy on the
details.
Basically, NetApp has three different ideas of the permissions
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>
>> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>>
>>> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
>>> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>>>
>> Why not the in kernel CIFS se
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
> > home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>
> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
An official supported version of Solaris
David Magda wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 07:33, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>>> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out
>>> user
>>> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
>
> It
On Mar 13, 2008, at 07:33, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out
>> user
>> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>
> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
It's an option, but not everyone
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Roy Butler wrote:
> > a NetApp could do some kind of mapping to satisfy
> your idea, but of even
> > that I'd be skeptical.
>
> We eval'd a netapp box. ACL mapping on netapp sucks.
> You really need to
> either use unix or windows privs, not both.
I run a few NetApp boxes,
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zf
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Roy Butler wrote:
> CIFS ACLs and NFS ACLs are not on a convergence course, are they? Maybe
NFSv4 ACLs (the ZFS native ACL) are based on CIFS/NT ACLs and virtually
identical. The Sun version of Samba does just about a perfect mapping
between them.
> a NetApp could do some
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
>
> I have samba configured and integrated into our local active directory,
> with ACL mapping working. I'm a little confused as to
I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
I have samba configured and integrated into our local active directory,
with ACL mapping working. I'm a little confused as to the behavior of the
ZFS ACL tho
23 matches
Mail list logo
