On Sat, February 7, 2009 14:32, Alan.M.Wright wrote: >>> Also, does this end up taking up extra metadata space compared to not >>> having to have an ACL entry for each file? > > No, ZFS only stores ACLs. It doesn't have or store a separate > representation of the UNIX permissions bits.
So I won't worry about it. I still worry when I see 11 ACL entries, though; if only that I can't read through it and accurately tell what it will do! > If you set traditional UNIX-like permissions on a ZFS file/directory, > ZFS sets the ACL to represents those permissions. I've certainly seen that happen; a change made in ACL syntax can result in the unix permission bits changing, in ways that represent the resulting ACL permissions. Sometimes I end up with Unix permissions of all dashes, though, when the ACL actually allows quite a lot of access. That's confusing. But if it allows the access I want, I can probably learn to stop worrying about it. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
