Then POSIX ACLs are still the way to go for the moment, though ZFS ACL's
seems pretty robust.
Volker, may I ask what is the trend now: are people switching to ACEs now or
still stick with POSIX ?
Dragos
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Volker Lendecke
volker.lende...@sernet.dewrote:
On Tue,
Thanks Jonathan,
I missed that.
So, zfsacl is provided by Oracle.
Should I favor acl_xattr besides zfsacl ?
Dragos
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Jonathan Buzzard jonat...@buzzard.me.ukwrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 09:18 +0300, Pacher Dragos wrote:
Dear list,
Setup is: Solaris 11
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:34 +0300, Pacher Dragos wrote:
Thanks Jonathan,
I missed that.
So, zfsacl is provided by Oracle.
I have no idea as I don't use Solaris
Should I favor acl_xattr besides zfsacl ?
I would have thought that zfsacl which stores the ACL's as native NFSv4
Seems resonable, zfsacl stores the ACE's natively compared to acl_xattr
that makes
use of extended attributes.
It seems that the big players (Oracle, IBM) made their own tools.
Any idea of the strict mapping completeness among zfsacl and acl_xattr ?
Is samba4 any breakthrough regarding this
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 02:12:02PM +0300, Pacher Dragos wrote:
Seems resonable, zfsacl stores the ACE's natively compared to acl_xattr
that makes
use of extended attributes.
It seems that the big players (Oracle, IBM) made their own tools.
Any idea of the strict mapping completeness among
Dear list,
Setup is: Solaris 11 ZFS + Samba 3.5.10
What is the recommended way nowadays of performing strict permissions
mapping between Samba and Windows NT 6.1 ?
And a more broader question: is it desirable ?
As we know ZFS has native NFSv4 ACL's and this would mean that permissions
applied
