Oh, without a doubt, and we considered it. However, the agency where I work
makes it rather difficult to register new DNS names, and they actively
discourage standing up new websites. But yes, I agree that is the simplest
solution, and we may be forced to attempt it and wade through the red
> Project SMB shares have export ACLs (as in "mmsmb exportacl ..")> limiting share access to the project's member group, in addition to the> NFSv4 ACLs.>> We also want to limit access to SMB shares to project subnets.> There is no way to specify that with "mmsmb", but we have found>>
Hi.
We have an ESS 5.0.4.3 cluster with a CES cluster serving files with
NFSv4 ACLs to NFS and SMB clients. This system is used for
sensitive research data, and will the next years house thousands of
research projects, which will have to be strictly separated. Each
project has its own
Hi Billich,
I think the problem is that you are specifying --choice-algorithm fast and
as per documentation "The fast choice method does not completely sort the
candidates by weight."
To sort the list you can try specifying --choice-algorithm exact which is
also the default.
Regards, The
Might it be easier to add gpfs1. and gpfs2. as CNAMEs to your web
proxy / firewall , and then configure the web proxy to select the backend
on the basis of the requested hostname? https://gpfs1./ redirects to
https://gpfs1./gui/ and there's no mucking about with gpfs stuff required
at all.
