idra at samba.org
Sat Apr 21 07:40:05 MDT 2012
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 13:34 +0200, steve wrote:
> On 21/04/12 03:34, simo wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 18:08 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:59:45PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:26:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:55:53AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:04:02PM +0200, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi List,
> >> (By the way, is reexporting nfs with samba really going to work well
> >> anyway?)
> > Not really, it is generally unsupported, except for read only shares. It
> > will work in most of the simple cases for writing .. until it breaks :)
> That's worrying.
> We been rw'ing nfs/samba for years. Maybe we're the only ones. nfs3 for
> our Linux clients and samba for the rest. Same shared data. Only Posix
> acl's though. Maybe that's the simple bit?
Steve, acl's are your last problem.
With NFS generally the problem revolves around locking, oplocks, etc...
ie concurrent access. For example samba on top of nfs tend to have
little problems when done for home directories because rarely a user
mixes use of the smb and nfs protocol to access their homes at the same
time. And when they do they rarely access the same files concurrently.
So it is not all gloom and doom, but I wouldn't really trust storing a
shared database on such a setup, and perhaps not even Office documents,
especially if you are using different software suites to edit documents.
MS Office tends to rely quite heavily on byte range locking and share
modes, etc... to guarantee integrity of the documents.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical