On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 14:58 -0600, Terry McGuire wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2018, at 06:37, Anoop C S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2018-09-12 at 10:37 -0600, Terry McGuire wrote: > > > > Can you please attach the output of `testparm -s` so as to look through > > > > how Samba is setup? > > > > I have a setup where I could browse and work with a GlusterFS volume share > > made available to > > Windows > > via vfs_glusterfs module on CentOS 7.5.1804 with glusterfs-3.10.12-1.el7 > > and samba-4.7.1- > > 9.el7_5. > > > > What am I missing? Are there any specific operation that leads to abnormal > > behaviours? > > It seems that, when using smbclient to keep things simple, the first command > in the share’s root > works, even if it’s a write. The following commands, even if it’s just an > ls, fails. > > One difference that might be making the difference is that my gluster volume > is distributed- > dispersed. This seems also to break the vfs_fruit module. > > > > > From our test server (“nomodule-nofruit” is currently the only > > > well-behaved share): > > > > > > root@mfsuat-01 ~]#testparm -s > > > Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf > > > rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384) > > > Processing section "[share1]" > > > Processing section "[share2]" > > > Processing section "[nomodule]" > > > Processing section "[nomodule-nofruit]" > > > Processing section "[module]" > > > Processing section "[IPC$]" > > > WARNING: No path in service IPC$ - making it unavailable! > > > NOTE: Service IPC$ is flagged unavailable. > > > > On an unrelated note: > > > > I don't think your intention to make [IPC$] unavailable using the > > 'available' parameter would > > work > > at all. > > I assume this IPC$ stuff is just an artifact of how I built my smb.conf file. > I put "vfs objects > = glusterfs” into the global stanza, so it didn’t need to be added to each > share stanza, but > I discovered that this broke IPC$ in such a way as to make no share > accessible. To fix this, I > added a share stanza for IPC$ that includes only “vfs objects =". Maybe > that’s dumb, but it > worked, and, I guess, results in what we see here.
Ok. First things first. Better move "vfs objects" parameter from [global] section to those share sections where it is required. This will help you avoid problems in future when you add non- glusterfs shares(and you forget adding empty "vfs objects" line). > > > Loaded services file OK. > > > idmap range not specified for domain '*' > > > ERROR: Invalid idmap range for domain *! > > > > On an unrelated note: > > > > Why haven't you specified range for default configuration? I think it is a > > must to set range for > > the > > default configuration. > > I guess because I’m clueless enough not to know that I should. We’re > authenticating samba users > from Windows Active Directory, and I’m really clueless about that. We got > things to the point > that they were working, and called it a day. Hm.. we will take that up later. > > > WARNING: You have some share names that are longer than 12 characters. > > > These may not be accessible to some older clients. > > > (Eg. Windows9x, WindowsMe, and smbclient prior to Samba 3.0.) > > > WARNING: some services use vfs_fruit, others don't. Mounting them in > > > conjunction on OS X > > > clients > > > results in undefined behaviour. > > > > > > Server role: ROLE_DOMAIN_MEMBER > > > > > > # Global parameters > > > [global] > > > log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m > > > map to guest = Bad User > > > max log size = 50 > > > realm = XXXX.AD.UALBERTA.CA > > > security = ADS > > > workgroup = STS > > > glusterfs:volume = mfs1 > > > idmap config * : backend = tdb > > > access based share enum = Yes > > > force create mode = 0777 > > > force directory mode = 0777 > > > include = /mfsmount/admin/etc/mfs/smb_shares.conf > > > kernel share modes = No > > > read only = No > > > smb encrypt = desired > > > vfs objects = glusterfs > > > [share1] > > > path = /share1 > > > valid users = @[email protected] > > > [share2] > > > path = /share2 > > > valid users = @[email protected] > > > > Oh.. you are sharing sub-directories which is also fine. > > We *only* share subdirs of the gluster volume, never the volume itself. > > > > > [nomodule] > > > kernel share modes = Yes > > > path = /mfsmount/share1 > > > valid users = @[email protected] > > > vfs objects = fruit streams_xattr > > > > Interesting.. > > > > Even this FUSE mounted GlusterFS share is not behaving normal? What errors > > do you see in > > glusterfs > > fuse mount log(/var/log/glusterfs/mfsmount-.log) while accessing this share? > > This one isn’t affected by the current samba issue, but it’s affected by > another issue. (I > actually posted about it a while ago - subject “vfs_fruit and extended > attributes”- and I think > you responded, but it didn’t go anywhere.) We discovered that the vfs_fruit > module seems to > interact poorly with our distributed-dispersed gluster volume. To learn > this, we made a test > replicated volume and it worked fine. We can look into issue with vfs_fruit + FUSE mount + disperse volume(interesting though..) after we finish debugging the current problem. > Ironically, we decided we could live without vfs_fruit when we discovered > vfs_glusterfs. Now we > have neither. :-( > > > > > [nomodule-nofruit] > > > kernel share modes = Yes > > > path = /mfsmount/share1 > > > valid users = @[email protected] > > > vfs objects = > > > > > > > > > [module] > > > path = /share1 > > > valid users = @[email protected] > > > [IPC$] > > > available = No > > > vfs objects = > > > > You may remove the whole [IPC$] section. > > IPC$ stuff explained above. Base on your explanation I would repeat my previous request to remove [IPC$] and follow what I suggested above on moving "vfs objects" to individual shares. Isn't shares [share1] and [module] same? _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
