On 09/10/13 18:31, Fosburgh,Jonathan wrote:
On 10/3/13 4:23 AM, "Jonathan Buzzard" <[email protected]> wrote:
I guess the first thing to do is confirm that you have functioning
CIFS's ACL's in your Samba GPFS file server. Specifically you would need
to have NFSv4 ACL's enabled in the file system and the gpfs VFS module
loaded in Samba. Note having mixed ACL modes did not work very well for
me, so best to turn off Posix ACL's and only do NFSv4 ACL's.
Thank you for the response. We have been able to make some headway on
this, but I am still bumping up on some issues. It looks as if, when an
NFSv4 ACL is already present on the parent directory tree, copying acls
via robocopy works. However, if there is a posix ACL present, then the
ACLs are still not copied correctly. I was interested in setting the ACL
mode to nfs4 only (currently set to all), however, I have some
reservations about this.
Like I said in my experience having both Posix and NFSv4 ACL's active at
the same time did not work properly as you have found out. You have to
pick one and stick with it. Clearly if you have an existing system with
both ACL types on then you have problems.
The NFS server is Red Hat, and I need to be able to server version 3 and
version 4, plus we will have native GPFS clients and the CIFS clients.
What are the ramifications, in this setup, of changing the ACL type? What
would happen to any existing ACLs?
My guess is the Posix ACL's either get lost or are "converted" into
NFSv4 ACL's. I would try this out on your "development/test" GPFS setup
first and work out a strategy for moving forward.
The biggest problem is that the IBM provided tools for manipulating the
GPFS ACL's from within Linux are awful.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Fife, United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
