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'l
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
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:37:09PM +0300, David wrote:
> > Thanks for all your
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
Hi Volker,
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"
o
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:01:43PM +0300, David wrote:
> So how can I resolve this issue?
Add code to the gpfs module to also deal properly with posix
acls :-)
> How come I can't see this behavior on non gpfs shares?
Because other file systems don't need the special API calls
to get/set acls.
>
So how can I resolve this issue?
How come I can't see this behavior on non gpfs shares?
The only thing I can think off is to: changes gpfs filesystem authorization
to nfsv4 or all(posix and nfsv4), and change samba configuration according.
I don't have any nfsv4 clients, only Linux, MacOsx and win
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:57:45AM +0300, David wrote:
> Thanks, so the gpfs module in the "vfs object" option can safely removed?
> I suspected that, cause on other samba servers I don't such behavior and I
> couldn't find any docs about that.
Well, you won't see acls then either, because gpfs re
Thanks, so the gpfs module in the "vfs object" option can safely removed?
I suspected that, cause on other samba servers I don't such behavior and I
couldn't find any docs about that.
David
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:48:27AM +0300, Dav
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:48:27AM +0300, David wrote:
> I'm adding the samba configuration file content, I think the attached file
> wasn't not sent :-(, sorry...
The GPFS module was mainly tested with NFSv4 ACLs. Not sure
it works with posix acls at all...
Volker
signature.asc
Description: Di
I'm adding the samba configuration file content, I think the attached file
wasn't not sent :-(, sorry...
[global]
netbios name = atlas
disable netbios = yes
server string = ATLAS Storage Device(Linux-GPFS)
realm = DOMAIN.COM
workgroup = DOMAIN
securi
Hi,
I am using samba samba3-3.3.4-39, with ctdb ctdb-1.0-69.x86_64, gpfs
gpfs-3.2.1 on centos 5.3 x86_64.
My problem is that from samba share I can't read file permissions and file
ownership, although I'm in "domain admins" group, which has full
permissions(rwx) via inherited acl (not user or grou
11 matches
Mail list logo
