On 12/06/18 09:44, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wols Lists wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Well, "Windows ACLs" is the only ACL system that is standardized (as part
>>> of
>>> the NFSv4 standard). The old proposal in POSIX.1e from 1993 from Sun has
>>> been
>>>
Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Well, "Windows ACLs" is the only ACL system that is standardized (as part
> > of
> > the NFSv4 standard). The old proposal in POSIX.1e from 1993 from Sun has
> > been
> > withdrawn in 1997 since the customers did not like it.
On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wol's lists wrote:
>
>> On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
> ...
>>> downsides as well, in particular it is certainly more complex and at
>>> work we practically forbid any kind of windows ACLs at anything other
>>> than the top mount level because
Wol's lists wrote:
> On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
...
> > downsides as well, in particular it is certainly more complex and at
> > work we practically forbid any kind of windows ACLs at anything other
> > than the top mount level because it is so hard to control.
>
> Windows is better
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Wol's lists wrote:
>
> On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I feel like this is something that Windows natively gets "better" than
> > POSIX. They have a concept of UIDs being specific to a machine or
> > authentication server (or domain as they call it), and
On June 9, 2018 1:20:14 PM UTC, Tom H wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM Ian Zimmerman
>wrote:
>>
>> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on
>NFS
>> clients and servers?
>
>You have to use NIS, NIS+Kerberos, or LDAP+Kerberos.
>
>I've never tried it but
On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote:
I feel like this is something that Windows natively gets "better" than
POSIX. They have a concept of UIDs being specific to a machine or
authentication server (or domain as they call it), and this concept is
enforced at the host level. That said, I'm sure
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 12:34 PM Grant Taylor
wrote:
>
> NFS will quite happily work with dissimilar IDs if you're using "other"
> permission to access everything. }:-)
>
There are a few network filesystems with this property. As long as
you just mount the whole filesystem with one user/group
On 06/08/2018 10:42 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
clients and servers?
I can argue that the IDs don't have to be synchronized to use NFS. You
just end up with unexpected complications from different IDs on
different systems.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
You have to use NIS, NIS+Kerberos, or LDAP+Kerberos.
I've never tried it but "/etc/idmapd.conf" has a "[Static]" section in
which you can set up
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 6:42:56 AM CEST Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
Not to my knowledge.
I use OpenLDAP for my users and groups and this has worked perfectly ever
since I implemented it.
> Or, is there
On 2018-06-09 09:41, Andrew Udvare wrote:
On 2018-06-09, at 00:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
clients and servers?
I checked and there is no way. It is recommended UID/GID be synced
regularly on all client machines.
NFSv4
> On 2018-06-09, at 00:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
I checked and there is no way. It is recommended UID/GID be synced regularly on
all client machines.
NFSv4 requires user names and group names be
On 09/06/18 05:42, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
> clients and servers?
>
> Or, is there any other remote filesystem (other than the one originally
> made by Microsoft) that avoids that chore?
Which filesystem do you mean? Do you
Is there _any_ way around the need to keep the user IDs matched on NFS
clients and servers?
Or, is there any other remote filesystem (other than the one originally
made by Microsoft) that avoids that chore?
This is the main reason I have mostly stayed away from NFS all these
years. Recently
15 matches
Mail list logo
