Confused about samba4 & s3fs

Rowland Penny repenny at f2s.com
Thu Aug 16 07:29:07 MDT 2012


On 16/08/12 12:25, steve wrote:
> On 16/08/12 10:51, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> Hi, over on the samba-users forum, somebody asked a question about
>> Samba4's rfc2307 compatibility with Samba3 and got this reply:
>
>>
>>  From these two statements from '[ANNOUNCE] Samba 4.0 beta6', my
>> understanding is that 's3fs' can & should be used to test it, is this
>> correct? and if not, why not.
>>
>
> Hi Rowland, hi everyone
>
> I think the intention is that we test s3fs and report errors against it.
>
> I have one bug open on it concerning acls and file ownership on g+s 
> shares:
>  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8938
> ACL's in general seem to report strange values when viewed on an ext4 
> filesystem. But that's about it. The acl's report differntly to how 
> they behave but GPO's under sysvol with XP and 7 work fine for us 
> under s3fs.
>
> In my tests, s3fs seems stable and robust and I was surprised that I 
> was told that it was not the recommended way to serve files. If I 
> don't serve files with it then how can I test it?
>
> I have since installed a S3.6 Vbox machine to do the file serving and 
> can only say that it really is a 'pita' to have to do so. Yeah, OK it 
> works but it's a lot of hassle and time spent on something which for 
> us s3fs on the DC works almost perfectly.
>
> It certainly is not clear what the official Samba stance is on this.
>
> Are we saying that the DC and file server should be separate (in which 
> case how about a S4 DC and a S4 s3fs file server on another box) or 
> are we saying that all file serving _must_ be done from a S3 box which 
> is separate from the DC?
>
> My fear is that during development, s3fs may become unstable and we 
> shall be forced to use S3 smbd on another box method.
>
> Could anyone give us a definitive yes/no to s3fs?
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
>
>
Hi Steve, I am with you here, s3fs is working for me, but I am confused 
over whether I should be using it or not. As you say, how are we to test 
it, if we are not supposed to use it?

Could someone say yes or no, and if no, give a good reason why not.

Rowland


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



More information about the samba-technical mailing list