Il 15. 10. 15 21:45, John Andersen ha scritto:
On 10/15/2015 11:56 AM, Marco wrote:
Il 15. 10. 15 20:10, Xen ha scritto:
"Carlos E. R."
schreef: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-14 21:06, Xen wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Then, apparently, the remote umask, at least for samba shares, is set to Samba? Yesterday you said NFS. They are very different, regarding permissions and users. Not really sure what you're responding to, sorry. I know I made a comparison between NFS and Samba. Samba won't transmit permissions (I think) and will just mount under the user you supplied for the samba share, ie. all the files will probably have that (remote) user.
Or maybe even the local user, I don't know. It's not like you can see in Windows. I believe in Linux mounting a samba share means setting its explicit user.
It depends whether or not the server providing the CIFS share has Linux integration capabilities, i.e. the Windows 2008 Unix interoperability components. My preferred choice was to install the NFS services or (years ago) an equivalent third-party product, this in order to minimize the components loaded in the clients and the configuration requirements. In this phase I have only "pure" Linux environments :-) (excluding a few winware VMs :-( ) so this is now a problem I'm happy to have behind me....
My preference was always to use Samba, and PREVENT the use of CIFS management of server side permissions, as these caused more problems than they solved. (Some file invariably became owned by the last person to touch it, bringing entire shops to a screeching halt).
Managing permissions on the Samba server generally worked out better.
Once you figure out Samba for your mixed environments, you find that in most cases it works well enough for even you all-linux environments.
Especially in the days when you had to coordinate all your user numbers across all NFS user machines. I understand those issues are behind us now, but they certainly colored the issue back in the day.
Btw for my new file servers I'm trying to move away from NFS and SAMBA and I'm experimenting glusterfs, on top of which NFS and CIFS are still viable options whenever required. I admit that glusterfs has some childhood problems, however it is robust (here it survived after potentially catastrophic failures) ensuring high-availability and data replication even on WANs, avoiding me the issues I did have with DRBD (split brain, etc etc). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org