Re: [zfs-discuss] Making ZFS better: zfshistory

On 4/21/10 6:49 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Williams And you can

Re: [zfs-discuss] Making ZFS better: zfshistory

On 04/21/10 08:45 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: Mark Shellenbaum [mailto:mark.shellenb...@oracle.com] You can create/destroy/rename snapshots via mkdir, rmdir, mv inside the .zfs/snapshot directory, however, it will only work if you're running the command locally. It will not

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS sgid directory interoperability with Linux

Paul B. Henson wrote: We're running Solaris 10 with ZFS to provide home and group directory file space over NFSv4. We've run into an interoperability issue between the Solaris NFS server and the Linux NFS client regarding the sgid bit on directories and assigning appropriate group ownership on ne

Re: [zfs-discuss] acl's and new dirs

Thomas Burgess wrote: I've got a strange issue, If this is covered elsewhere, i apologize in advance for my newbness I've got a couple ZFS filesystems shared cifs and nfs, i've managed to get ACL's working the way i want, provided things are accessed via cifs and nfs. If i create a new dir

Re: [zfs-discuss] Repairing corrupted ZFS pool

On 11/16/12 17:15, Peter Jeremy wrote: I have been tracking down a problem with "zfs diff" that reveals itself variously as a hang (unkillable process), panic or error, depending on the ZFS kernel version but seems to be caused by corruption within the pool. I am using FreeBSD but the issue look

Re: [zfs-discuss] Repairing corrupted ZFS pool

On 11/19/12 1:14 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: On 2012-11-19 20:58, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: There is probably nothing wrong with the snapshots. This is a bug in ZFS diff. The ZPL parent pointer is only guaranteed to be correct for directory objects. What you probably have is a file that was hard

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS acl inherit problem

On 6/1/11 12:51 AM, lance wilson wrote: The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files that don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file permissions. Can someone please pr

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > Thanks Michale, > > that got me through to second round :) I eventually added /sbin to my > /etc/profile to avoid the mistake in future. > > So the issue is now with the USER rights on the zfs. How can I grant USER > rights on this zfs? Is upgrading to a zfs which support

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > Indeed I want a permanent solution so I'll upgrade my zpool as suggested, > since that seems to be the only option > > I searched sunsolve for the relevant patches /package downloads and googled > zfs upgrade but only got references to documentation. Any clues where I can

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to get a file's crtime attribute from a znode?

Todd E. Moore wrote: > I'm used to using fstat() and other calls to get atime, ctime, and mtime > values, but I understand that the znode also stores a files creation > time in crtime attribute. > > Which system call can I use to retrieve this information? > You can use the getattrat() or fget

Re: [zfs-discuss] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?

Rob wrote: > Hello All! > > Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a > directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i > want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of > all ACLs? > > > There isn't

Re: [zfs-discuss] force a reset/reinheit zfs acls?

Rob wrote: >> Rob wrote: >>> Hello All! >>> >>> Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset >> of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders >> that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i >> want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can >> i force a reapply of all ACLs?

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Paul B. Henson wrote: > I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS > ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so > decided to implement my own C code. > > It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL; > however, I

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Joe Blount wrote: > >>> Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque? >>> >> >> Yes, its meant to be opaque. >> >> The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. >> > > Will old versions be supported? For example, if ADM >

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future. > [...] >> of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data() >> which will return you the poi

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Ian Collins wrote: > Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >> Paul B. Henson wrote: >>> Are the libsec undocumented interfaces likely to remain the same when the >>> acl_t structure changes? They will still require adding the prototypes to >>> my code so the compiler knows w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS commands hanging in B95

Ian Collins wrote: > I have a pretty standard ZFS boot AMD64 desktop. A the moment, most ZFS > related commands are hanging (can't be killed) . Running 'truss share' > the last few lines I see are: > Can you provide a kernel thread list report? You can use mdb -k to get that. Once in mdb typ

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS commands hanging in B95

Ian Collins wrote: > Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >> Ian Collins wrote: >>> I have a pretty standard ZFS boot AMD64 desktop. A the moment, most ZFS >>> related commands are hanging (can't be killed) . Running 'truss share' >>> the last few lines I s

Re: [zfs-discuss] C code for reading ZFS ACL

Joe Blount wrote: > Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >> Joe Blount wrote: >>>>> Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque? >>>>> >>>> Yes, its meant to be opaque. >>>> >>>> The layout of the acl_t will likely change in t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshots during a scrub

mike wrote: > I have a weekly scrub setup, and I've seen at least once now where it > says "don't snapshot while scrubbing" > > Is this a data integrity issue, or will it make one or both of the > processes take longer? > > Thank That problem has been fixed in build 94. Here is the bug that p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel Panic

David Bartley wrote: > Hello, > > We're repeatedly seeing a kernel panic on our disk server. We've been unable > to determine exactly how to reproduce it, but it seems to occur fairly > frequently (a few times a day). This is happening on both snv91 and snv96. > We've run 'zpool scrub' and this

Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel Panic

David Bartley wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Mark Shellenbaum > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> David Bartley wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> We're repeatedly seeing a kernel panic on our disk server. We've been >>> unable

Re: [zfs-discuss] dataset directory [C1]

Cyril ROUHASSIA wrote: > > Dear all, > > From an implementation point of view, I really do not understand where > the list of all datasets lie. I know how to to get from the uberblock > to the "active dataset" (through MOS and so on) but once there how to > get to others datasets located

Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel Panic

:_sys_sysenter_post_swapgs+0x14b() > -- switch to user thread's user stack -- > > panic string: assertion failed: 0 == dmu_bonus_hold(os, fuid_obj, > FTAG, &db), file: ../../common/fs/zfs/zfs_fuid.c, line: 95 > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ufsrestore to ZFS

dick hoogendijk wrote: > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:47:52 +0100 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > >> Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> dick hoogendijk wrote: As I understand ufsrestore is independent of the FS it writes to. So, I wonder, is it possible to do a pipe f

Re: [zfs-discuss] Files from the future are not accessible on ZFS

Laurent Blume wrote: > Hi all, > > It seems a user managed to create files dated Oct 16, 2057, from a Linux > distro that mounted by NFS the volumes on an x2100 server running S10U5, with > ZFS volumes. > > The problem is, those files are completely unreachable on the S10 server: > > # ls -l .

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

> However, I notice that when using ZFS on Indiana the above commands fail > with the following error: > >File system doesn't support aclent_t style ACL's. >See acl(5) for more information on ACL styles support by Solaris. > > What is the appropriate command to use with ZFS? You can us

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

> > ACL's seemed a good solution since it leaves the overall ownership > and permissions of the device the same, but just adds the gdm user as > having permission to access the device as needed. Is there any way to > get this same sort of behavior when using ZFS. > I think you may have misunde

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

Brian Cameron wrote: > Mark & Others: > >> I think you may have misunderstood what people were suggesting. They >> weren't suggesting changing the mode of the file, but using chmod(1M) to >> add/modify ZFS ACLs on the device file. >> >> chmod A+user:gdm:rwx:allow >> >> See chmod(1M) or the zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

>> You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually >> adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs >> you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it >> long enough you will eventually get an error back when you reach the >> ACE

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM

Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >>> You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually >>> adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs >>> you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it >>> lon

Re: [zfs-discuss] perm/mode is lost on zfs raw device

Vahid Moghaddasi wrote: > Hi all, > We have this problem of losing permission and ownership of the raw zfs > devices when the pool is moved from one system to another. > The owner is an application account and each time we failover to another > machine, have to set the permission and owner manual

Re: [zfs-discuss] POSIX permission bits, ACEs, and inheritance confusion

his, I stumbled into this thread: http://tinyurl.com/7ofxfj. > Ok, so it seems that this is "intended" behavior to comply with POSIX. As the > author of the thread mentioned, I would like to see an inheritance mode that > completely ignores POSIX. The thread ends with Mark Shelle

Re: [zfs-discuss] questions on zfs backups

Ian Collins wrote: > satya wrote: >> Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of >> pax utility do the trick? >> >> > pax should, according to > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view > pax isn't ACL aware. It does handle extended attributes, th

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and zfs

Louis Hoefler wrote: > But what is the recommended way to share a directory? You should be able to use sharemgr directly to just share a directory and not an entire file system. If you do that you shouldn't set the sharesmb property, though. Use either the sharesmb property or use sharemgr di

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs smb public share, files created not public

Roger wrote: > Hi! > Im running popensolaris b101 and ive made a zfs pool called tank and an fs > inside of it tank/public, ive shared it with smb. > > zfs set sharesmb=on tank/public > > im using solaris smb and not samba. > > The problem is this. When i connect and create a file its readable

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problems with '..' on ZFS pool

Dustin Marquess wrote: > Forgot to add that a truss shows: > > 14960: lstat64("/a1000/..", 0xFFBFF7E8)Err#13 EACCES > [file_dac_search] > > ppriv shows the error in UFS: > > $ ppriv -e -D -s -file_dac_search ls -ld /a1000/.. > ls[15022]: missing privilege "file_dac_search" (eui

[zfs-discuss] ZFS core contributor nominations

both Contributor and Core contributor levels. First the current list of Core contributors: Bill Moore (billm) Cindy Swearingen (cindys) Lori M. Alt (lalt) Mark Shellenbaum (marks) Mark Maybee (maybee) Matthew A. Ahrens (ahrens) Neil V. Perrin (perrin) Jeff Bonwick (bonwick) Eric Schrock (eschrock

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS core contributor nominations

Neil Perrin wrote: > >> Looks reasonable >> +1 >> >> Neil. >> >> On 02/02/09 08:55, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >>> The time has come to review the current Contributor and Core >>> contributor >>> grants for ZFS. Since all of the ZFS core con

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL mode inherit issue

Asif Iqbal wrote: How do I make sure any new file inherit the group permission from its directory in ZFS? I tried to add a non-trivial acl (index id 3), but the files permissions are still following the users umask # ls -dv folder/ drwxrwxr-x+ 2 root other 3 Mar 6 02:09 folder/

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL interpretation

David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On page 202 of the December 2008 Solaris ZFS Administration Guide, it says the ACLs are processed in order. Then it says that an explicit allow ends processing (or at least it says that a later deny can't override an earlier allow). But that's all it says; it doesn't re

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs

Drew Balfour wrote: I have OSol 2009.06 (b111a), and I'm not sure I'm getting this ZFS ACL thing: %whoami abalfour % ls -V file --+ 1 abalfour root 1474560 May 11 18:43 file owner@:-w--d--A-W-C--:---:deny according to that ACL I shouldn't be able to write anyt

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs

abalf...@gmail.com wrote: On May 21, 2009 11:08am, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > Nope, the owner always has the ability to fix broken permissions on files. Otherwise the owner would be locked out of their own files. Nuts; That's what I was trying to do; lock owners into read/write

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL not being inherited correctly

Andrew Watkins wrote: [I did post this in NFS, but I think it should be here] I am playing with ACL on snv_114 (and Storage 7110) system and I have noticed that strange things are happing to ACL's or am I doing something wrong. When you create a new sub-directory or file the ACL's seem to be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Creating ZFS filesystem with inherited ACLs ?

Thomas Fili wrote: Hi @all, with ZFS its recommended to create a new filesystem, for example for each user to give them a home directory. So far, so good. The homes should be under tank/export/home/staff and my intention is to restrict the ACL rights so only the user self can access his own

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS attributes for CIFS.

Kyle McDonald wrote: Hi all, I'm setting up a new fileserver, and while I'm not planning on enabling CIFS right away, I know I will in the future. I know there are several ZFS properties or attributes that affect how CIFS behaves. I seem to recall that at least one of those needs to be set

Re: [zfs-discuss] Purpose of zfs_acl_split_ace

Nils Goroll wrote: Hi, I just noticed that Mark Shellenbaum has replied to the same question in a thread "ACL not being inherited correctly" on zfs-discuss. Sorry for the noise. Out of curiosity, I would still be interested in answers to this question: It there a reason why i

Re: [zfs-discuss] [cifs-discuss] [nfs-discuss] Why can't we write to files created in multi-protocol se

Afshin Salek wrote: I can't really explain the changes that happen to the file's ACL using vi over NFS. I'm CC'ing zfs-discuss maybe someone there can help out. Afshin This is caused by vim trying to preserve ACLs and the NFSv3 server making some bad assumptions. What is happening is that

Re: [zfs-discuss] [cifs-discuss] [nfs-discuss] Why can't we write to files created in multi-protocol se

John Keiffer wrote: Mark, Does it matter that the share IS mounted nfsv4? I'm not sure. In a cursory look at the nfsv4 server code it looks like it would also fabricate an ACL. I don't know what translations if any the linux client does before sending it over to Solaris. I will CC nfs-d

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: There has been no forward progress on the ZFS read performance issue for a week now. A 4X reduction in file read performance due to having read the file before is terrible, and of course the situation is considerably worse if the file was previously mmapped as well. Man

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS file permissions - some files missing over SMB?

Chris Murray wrote: Hello, Hopefully a quick and easy permissions problem here, but I'm stumped and quickly reached the end of my Unix knowledge. I have a ZFS filesystem called "fs/itunes" on pool "zp". In it, the "iTunes music" folder contained a load of other folders - one for each artist.

Re: [zfs-discuss] sharenfs question

dick hoogendijk wrote: # zfs create store/snaps # zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps # share -...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen "" arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 > /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906 zsh: permission denied: /net/westmark/store/sna

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS CIFS problem with Ubuntu, NFS as an alternative?

Christian Flaig wrote: Hello, I got a very strange problem here, tried out many things, can't solve it. I run a virtual machine via VirtualBox 2.2.4, with Ubuntu 9.04. OpenSolaris as the host is 2009-06, with snv118. Now I try to mount (via CIFS) a share in Ubuntu from OpenSolaris. Mounting is

Re: [zfs-discuss] `zfs list -t filesystem` shouldn't return snapshots

Robert Lawhead wrote: I recently tried to post this as a bug, and received an auto-ack, but can't tell whether its been accepted. Does this seem like a bug to anyone else? Default for zfs list is now to show only filesystems. However, a `zfs list` or `zfs list -t filesystem` shows filesystem

Re: [zfs-discuss] *Almost* empty ZFS filesystem - 14GB?

Chris Murray wrote: Nico, what is a zero-link file, and how would I go about finding whether I have one? You'll have to bear with me, I'm afraid, as I'm still building my Solaris knowledge at the minute - I was brought up on Windows. I use Solaris for my storage needs now though, and slowly im

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Export, Import = Windows sees wrong groups in ACLs

Owen Davies wrote: I had a OpenSolaris server running basically as a fileserver for all my windows machines. The CIFS server was running in WORKGROUP mode. I had several users defined on the server to match my windows users. I had these users in a few groups (the most important being Parent

Re: [zfs-discuss] Which kind of ACLs does tmpfs support ?

Roland Mainz wrote: Hi! Does anyone know out-of-the-head whether tmpfs supports ACLs - and if "yes" - which type(s) of ACLs (e.g. NFSv4/ZFS, old POSIX draft ACLs etc.) are supported by tmpfs ? tmpfs does not support ACLs see _PC_ACL_ENABLED in [f]pathconf(2). You can query the file sy

Re: [zfs-discuss] status of user delegation

Darren J Moffat wrote: Is there a time line for when we should expect the integration of the user delegation functionality ? I'm desperately waiting for it and I keep seeing new functionality that was approved after it integrating and I'm wondering when it is coming. Anything I can do to hel

Re: [zfs-discuss] status of user delegation

Al Hopper wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: Darren J Moffat wrote: Is there a time line for when we should expect the integration of the user delegation functionality ? I'm desperately waiting for it and I keep seeing new functionality that was approved after it integr

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

Jens Elkner wrote: Hi, 2) On zfs - e.g. as root do: cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir # cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry I will open a bug on that. cp -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir # cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry find dir | cpio -pu

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask because of POSIX. Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that afte

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with no success. The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be created mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do this? # zfs set aclmode=passthrough # mkdir dir.test # chmo

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

It looks like we're between a rock and a hard place. We want to use ZFS for one project because of snapshots and data integrity - both would give us considerable advantages over ufs (not to mention filesystem size). Unfortunately, this is critical company data and the access control has to be e

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

Peter Tribble wrote: On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The original plan was to allow the inheritance of owner/group/other permissions. Unfortunately, during ARC reviews we were forced to remove that functionality, due to POSIX compliance and security concerns.

Re: [zfs-discuss] migration/acl4 problem

Peter Tribble wrote: On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Peter Tribble wrote: > What exactly is the POSIX compliance requirement here? > The ignoring of a users umask. Where in POSIX does it specify the interaction of ACLs and a user's umask? Let me

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: delete acl not working on zfs.v3?

Carson Gaspar wrote: we give the right to add folder to user foo.(this user can not delete anything as a default) After that we give the right create file.And then user foo gains delete everthing. How come is it possible. Even though we add another rule like "0:user:foo:delete_child/delete:deny".

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: delete acl not working on zfs.v3?

Carson Gaspar wrote: we give the right to add folder to user foo.(this user can not delete anything as a default) After that we give the right create file.And then user foo gains delete everthing. How come is it possible. Even though we add another rule like "0:user:foo:delete_child/delete:deny".

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: delete acl not working on zfs.v3?

Carson Gaspar wrote: Mark Shellenbaum wrote: Can you post the full ACL on the directory and on the file you are being allowed to delete. Simple test: carson:gandalf 2 $ uname -a SunOS gandalf.taltos.org 5.10 Generic_125101-02 i86pc i386 i86pc carson:gandalf 0 $ mkdir foo carson:gandalf 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best way to migrate filesystems to ZFS?

Robert Thurlow wrote: Richard Elling wrote: Peter Eriksson wrote: ufsdump/ufsrestore doesn't restore the ACLs so that doesn't work, same with rsync. ufsrestore obviously won't work on ZFS. ufsrestore works fine; it only reads from a 'ufsdump' format medium and writes through generic files

Re: [zfs-discuss] FreeBSD's system flags.

Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: Hi there. We have something called system flags in FreeBSD. Those are bascially some additional flags you can set on files/directories (not extended attributes nor ACLs). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=chflags&apropos=0&sektion=2&format=html

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs submounts and permissions with autofs

Gavin Maltby wrote: Hi, Is it expected that if I have filesystem tank/foo and tank/foo/bar (mounted under /tank) then in order to be able to browse via /net down into tank/foo/bar I need to have group/other permissions on /tank/foo open? You are running into bug: 4697677 permissions of underl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Delegated Administration?

Haik Aftandilian wrote: Is it possible to give a user control of a ZFS filesystem such that the user can create their own file systems "within" it, take snapshots, etc.? Thanks, Haik Support for this should be available within the next month or two. You should check out PSARC/2006/465 h

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS delegation script

Nicolas Williams wrote: Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see attachment. Nico The *real* ZFS delegation code was integrated into Nevada this morning. I've placed a little overview in my blog. http://blogs.sun.com/marks -Mark ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] Status of Samba/ZFS integration

Razvan Corneliu VILT wrote: > Sounds like the right solution to my problem in it solves a few problems, but > I am rather curious about how it would integrate with a potential Samba > server running on the same system (in case someone needs a domain controller > as well as a fileserver). > > 1

Re: [zfs-discuss] Status of Samba/ZFS integration

Rayson Ho wrote: > Does anyone know whether the following (copied from Wikipedia) is true or > not?? > > "Solaris has a project called CIFS client for Solaris, based on the > Mac OS X smbfs." > > Rayson > Yes, that is true. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/smbfs/ -Mark _

Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS and user-visible snapshots

Dick Davies wrote: > Does anybody know if the upcoming CIFS integration in b77 will > provide a mechanism for users to see snapshots (like .zfs/snapshot/ > does for NFS)? > I don't believe that the version in build 77 will traverse down .zfs It would be a good thing to add though. -Mark

Re: [zfs-discuss] cifs server?

Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:27:18AM -0800, Tim Cook wrote: >> So now that cifs has finally been released in b77, anyone happen to > > It hasn't been released. It was integrated into build 77. > >> have any documentation on setup. I know the initial share is > > The doc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Delegating iscsishare zfs permissions (iscsitgtd privileges)

Stefan de Konink wrote: > I have created a user 'block' which has the following ZFS permissions on > tank/iscsi_luns. > > -bash-3.2# zfs allow tank/iscsi_luns > - > Local+Descendent permissions on (tank/iscsi_luns) > user block

Re: [zfs-discuss] Delegating iscsishare zfs permissions (iscsitgtd privileges)

Stefan de Konink wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Local+Descendent permissions on (tank/iscsi_luns) > user block > clone,create,destroy,mount,mountpoint,promote,rename,reservation,rollback,share,shareiscsi,snapshot,volsize > > (added share) > > The strange thing is that the command seems to fail: >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Delegating iscsishare zfs permissions (iscsitgtd privileges)

>> I'm seeing some other issues with delegation+iscisi with the latest >> Nevada bits. I will need to investigate them and will likely raise some >> bugs once I figure out whats going on. > > Thanks. For now my sudo wrapper works, but I would be very happy if this > can be sorted out without any

Re: [zfs-discuss] dos programs on a ZFS+CIFS server setup

Maurilio Longo wrote: > Hi, > > I'm testing ZFS+CIFS server using nexenta core rc4, everything seems fine and > speed is also ok, but DOS programs don't see sub-dirs (command.com sees them, > though). > > I've set casesensitivity=insensitive in the ZFS filesystem that I'm sharing. > > I've mad

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can ZFS be event-driven or not?

Kyle McDonald wrote: > Bill Sommerfeld wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 13:43 -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote: >> >>> How was it MVFS could do this without any changes to the shells or any >>> other programs? >>> >>> I ClearCase could 'grep FOO /dir1/dir2/file@@/main/*' to see which >>> version of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL invalid argument from client

kevin kramer wrote: > client CentOS 5.1 latest kernel > mount option for zfs filesystem = > rw,nosuid,nodev,remount,noatime,nfsvers=3,udp,intr,bg > ,hard,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 > > directory and parent owned by user and users GID, 775 > on client t

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL invalid argument from client

Kevin Kramer wrote: > no. I'm running on a Dell 1950. I'm updating the system now. Do my > aclmode,aclinherit look right? I've read the guide and think this is my > best option. > > thanks. the ACL properties have no bearing on this. The issue is that you are using an NFSv3 client and its ask

Re: [zfs-discuss] ACL invalid argument from client

Kevin Kramer wrote: > client is CentOS 5.1 > server is running Sol10 > You should look into applying the patch I mentioned earlier on your S10 server. -Mark > > > > Is your ZFS file system on an S10 system? > > > > You are most likely seeing this bug. > > > > 6528189 cp -p invalid ar

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs/Samba integration

Jens Elkner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:57AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Paul B. Henson wrote: >>> I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user >>> home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba. >> Why not the in kernel CIFS server ? >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs/Samba integration

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> this behavior is only possible from a Windows client. When creating >> files from unix the POSIX rules apply and the requestors mode must be >> honored, which results in the owner@, group@, and eve

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs/Samba integration

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> That is not correct. The deny entries are necessary for POSIX semantics. >> In POSIX are only allowed to pick up permissions from the owner, group or >> other class. You can't pick up pa

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs/Samba integration

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > >> I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this >> sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to "sell" if it's not the >> default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACLs/Samba integration

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people >> want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@, >> everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions wil

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling ZFS ACL

Kyle McDonald wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Sachin Palav wrote: >> >>> Hello Friends, >>> >>> Can some please let me know how I can disable ZFS ACL completely. I want to >>> use ZFS with plain unix permission without ACL support >>> >> >> I'm really curious as to why you want to do t

[zfs-discuss] aclinherit property changes fast track

Here is a draft of the fast track to allow ZFS to inherit mode permission via owner@, group@ and everyone@ -Mark SUMMARY: This proposal is to change the ZFS ACL inheritance rules when the zfs acl property is set to "passthrough". PROBLEM: The ZFS ACL sub

Re: [zfs-discuss] aclinherit property changes fast track

Marc Bevand wrote: > Mark Shellenbaum Sun.COM> writes: >> # ls -V a >> -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Mar 19 13:04 a >> owner@:--:--I:allow >> group@:--:--I:allow >> ev

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling ZFS ACL

Sachin Palav wrote: > We are using this server as NFS & SAMBA server, we created ZFS file systems > considering it features. But un-fortunately we are experiencing problems with > every NFS client (almost all version os UNIX (AIX/Linux/HP). So I have now > set the server to use NFS version 2, as

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACE limit?

Paul B. Henson wrote: > One of my colleagues was testing our ZFS prototype (S10U4), and was > wondering what was the limit for ACE's on a ZFS ACL. > > Empirically, he determined that he could not add more than 1024 ACE's > either locally or via NFSv4 from a Solaris client (from a Linux NFSv4 > cli

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS cli for REMOTE Administration

Marcelo Leal wrote: > No answer... well, do you not have this problem or there is another option to > delegate such administration? I was thinking if we can delegate a "single" > filesystem administration to some user through ZFS administration web console > (67889). > Can i create a user and

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS cli for REMOTE Administration

Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > >> we already have the ability to allow users to create/destroy snapshots >> over NFS. Look at the ZFS delegated administration model. If all you >> want is snapshot creation/destruction the

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS cli for REMOTE Administration

Andy Lubel wrote: > Paul B. Henson wrote: >>> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: >>> >>>> we already have the ability to allow users to create/destroy snapshots >>>> over NFS. Look at the ZFS delegated administration model. If all you >&g

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling ZFS ACL

kevin kramer wrote: > that is my thread and I'm still having issues even after applying that patch. > It just came up again this week. > > [locahost] uname -a > Linux dv-121-25.centtech.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST > 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > [localhost] cat /

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs equivalent of ufsdump and ufsrestore

Joerg Schilling wrote: > Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is "star". >> I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs >> send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the >> actual on dis

  1   2   >