Re: [Gluster-users] Fwd: Samba vfs_glusterfs no such file or directory
> Samba with vfs_glusterfs has a limit of approx. 93 groups. If 'id > $USER' > > returns more than 93 groups, those users can run into various issues. > > 'Access is denied' is one of the most common errors they'll see. > > > > The upcoming 3.5.1 release has a 'server.manage-gids' volume option. > > With this option enabled, the number of groups will be limited to 65535. > > > > > Ahh, great. I am very glad, at least, that this is a known issue and that > it's being addressed. > > > > > > > What am I missing here? > > Very little, I would also suspect that the number of groups that those > > problematic users belong to is too big. > > > Well that's a first :). > > I will test this against the 3.5.1 release when that is ready. Is the 3.5.1 > version of vfs_glusterfs backwards compatible with glusterfs 3.4, or do I > need to upgrade the whole cluster to leverage the new vfs_glusterfs? The 3.5.1 release is backwards compatible with 3.4.x, but in order to enable the 'server.manage-gids' volume option, all servers and clients using the volume should get the 3.5.1 update. RPM packages for 3.5.1 have been made available earlier this week. I guess that .deb packages follow soon. Cheers, Niels ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
[Gluster-users] Fwd: Samba vfs_glusterfs no such file or directory
Boy, it's not a good day for my list etiquette. Apologies, folks. -- Forwarded message -- From: David Gibbons Date: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Samba vfs_glusterfs no such file or directory To: Niels de Vos Samba with vfs_glusterfs has a limit of approx. 93 groups. If 'id $USER' > returns more than 93 groups, those users can run into various issues. > 'Access is denied' is one of the most common errors they'll see. > > The upcoming 3.5.1 release has a 'server.manage-gids' volume option. > With this option enabled, the number of groups will be limited to 65535. > > Ahh, great. I am very glad, at least, that this is a known issue and that it's being addressed. > > > What am I missing here? > Very little, I would also suspect that the number of groups that those > problematic users belong to is too big. Well that's a first :). I will test this against the 3.5.1 release when that is ready. Is the 3.5.1 version of vfs_glusterfs backwards compatible with glusterfs 3.4, or do I need to upgrade the whole cluster to leverage the new vfs_glusterfs? Thanks so much, Dave ___ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
