On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:59:37PM -0600, Drew Balfour wrote:
...
> For Opensolaris, Solaris CIFS != samba. Solaris now has a native in kernel
> CIFS server which has nothing to do with samba. Apart from having it's
> commands start with "smb", which can be confusing.
>
> http://www.opensolaris.
Jens Elkner wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:20:23AM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
ZFS user/group directories.
...
Evidently the samba engineering group is in Prague. I don't know if it is a
language problem, or where th
On 14/10/2009, at 2:27 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
So why not the built-in CIFS support in OpenSolaris? Probably has a
similar issue, but still.
In my case, it’s at least two reasons:
* Crossing mountpoints requires separate shares - Samba can share an
entire hierarchy regardless of ZF
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:20:23AM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
> ZFS user/group directories.
...
> Evidently the samba engineering group is in Prague. I don't know if it is a
> language problem, or where the confusion i
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Drew Balfour wrote:
> Ah. No. If you're using idmap and are mapping to an AD server, the
> windows SIDs (which are both users and groups) are stored in a cred
> struct (in cr_ksid) which allows more than 32 groups, up to 64k iirc.
Ah, yes, I neglected to consider that given t
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 casper@sun.com wrote:
> That's not entirely true; the issue is similar having more than 16 groups
> as it breaks AUTH_SYS over-the-wire "authentication" but we already have
> that now.
[...]
> For now, we're aiming for 1024 groups but also make sure that the
> userland will
Paul B. Henson wrote:
So why not the built-in CIFS support in OpenSolaris? Probably has a
similar issue, but still.
I wouldn't think it has this same issue; presumably it won't support more
than the kernel limit of 32 groups, but I can't imagine that in the case
when a user is in more than 32
>Regarding Solaris 10, my understanding was that the current 32 group limit
>could only be changed by modifying internal kernel structures that would
>break backwards compatibility, which wouldn't happen because Solaris
>guarantees backwards binary compatibility. I could most definitely be
>mista
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 casper@sun.com wrote:
> So why not the built-in CIFS support in OpenSolaris? Probably has a
> similar issue, but still.
I wouldn't think it has this same issue; presumably it won't support more
than the kernel limit of 32 groups, but I can't imagine that in the case
when
>
>We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
>ZFS user/group directories.
So why not the built-in CIFS support in OpenSolaris? Probably has a
similar issue, but still.
>I found a bug in active directory integration mode, where if a user is in
>more than 32 activ
We're currently using the Sun bundled Samba to provide CIFS access to our
ZFS user/group directories.
I found a bug in active directory integration mode, where if a user is in
more than 32 active directory groups, samba calls setgroups with a group
list of greater than 32, which fails, resulting
11 matches
Mail list logo
