On 1/26/07, Robert Thurlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Enright wrote:
> Samba does not currently support ZFS ACLs.
Yes, but this just means you can't get/set your ACLs from a CIFS
client. ACLs will be enforced just fine once set locally on the
server; you may also be able to get/set them f
Eric Enright wrote:
Samba does not currently support ZFS ACLs.
Yes, but this just means you can't get/set your ACLs from a CIFS
client. ACLs will be enforced just fine once set locally on the
server; you may also be able to get/set them from an NFS client.
You may know this, but I know some a
On 1/26/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
> For several reasons we currently need to stay on UFS and can't switch to
> ZFS proper. So instead we have opted to do UFS on a zvol using raid-z,
Can you state what those reasons are please ?
I know that isn't answe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/26/2007 12:20:17 PM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *snip*
> IMO, the quota-per-file-system approach seems inconvenient when you get
> past a handful of file systems. Unless I'm really missing something, it
> just seems like a nightmare to have to deal with such a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*snip*
IMO, the quota-per-file-system approach seems inconvenient when you get
past a handful of file systems. Unless I'm really missing something, it
just seems like a nightmare to have to deal with such a ridiculous
number of file systems.
Why? What additiona
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
> IMO, the quota-per-file-system approach seems inconvenient when you get
> past a handful of file systems. Unless I'm really missing something, it
> just seems like a nightmare to have to deal with such a ridiculous
> number of file systems.
Seconded -- is there any chance
>The other reason is that the machine has been around for years, already
>using UFS and quotas extensively. Over winter break we had time to
>upgrade to Solaris 10 and migrate the volume from svm to zvol, but not
>much more.There are a few thousand users on the machine. The thought of
>transit
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
For several reasons we currently need to stay on UFS and can't switch
to ZFS proper. So instead we have opted to do UFS on a zvol using
raid-z,
Can you state what those reasons are please ?
I know that isn't answering the question you are asking
Brian H. Nelson wrote:
For several reasons we currently need to stay on UFS and can't switch to
ZFS proper. So instead we have opted to do UFS on a zvol using raid-z,
Can you state what those reasons are please ?
I know that isn't answering the question you are asking but it is worth
making
Hi all!
First off, if this has been discussed, please point me in that
direction. I have searched high and low and really can't find much info
on the subject.
We have a large-ish (200gb) UFS file system on a Sun Enterprise 250 that
is being shared with samba (lots of files, mostly random IO)
10 matches
Mail list logo
