On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Eric Eastman
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Eric Eastman
>>>
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Eric Eastman
wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Eric Eastman
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Eric Eastman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Eric Eastman
> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Eric Eastman
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A simple test of setting an ACL from
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Eric Eastman
wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Eric Eastman
> wrote:
>
>> As it should be working, I will increase the logging level in my
>> smb.conf file and see what info I can get out of the
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Eric Eastman
wrote:
> As it should be working, I will increase the logging level in my
> smb.conf file and see what info I can get out of the logs, and report back.
Setting the log level = 20 in my smb.conf file, and trying to add an
As it should be working, I will increase the logging level in my
smb.conf file and see what info I can get out of the logs, and report
back.
I would like to use the native Samba's CephFS VFS interface, but I
could not get Samba ACLs to work when testing it, as it it looks like
the Samba
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Eric Eastman
wrote:
> I was doing some SAMBA testing and noticed that a kernel mounted share
> acted differently then a fuse mounted share with Windows security on
> my windows client. I cut my test down to as simple as possible, and I
I was doing some SAMBA testing and noticed that a kernel mounted share
acted differently then a fuse mounted share with Windows security on
my windows client. I cut my test down to as simple as possible, and I
am seeing the kernel mounted Ceph file system working as expected with
SAMBA and the