default FILE SERVER change for EXISTING Samba4 installs (was Re: Is a 'flag day' OK for a move from ntvfs to s3fs by default?)

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Thu Jun 14 19:22:14 MDT 2012

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:39 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:07:54PM +0300, Andriy Syrovenko wrote:
> > 2012/6/14 Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at>:
> > > I guess one of the underlying questions also is: why would users want
> > > to stick to ntvfs at this point? Just the fact that it's been tested
> > > better with e.g. GPOs?
> > 
> > As far as I understand POSIX ACLs support is mandatory for s3fs. But
> > POSIX ACLs are not available when using ZFS, only NFSv4-style ACLs
> > (i.e. ZFS ACLs) are available (at least on FreeBSD, not sure about
> > Solaris and its descendants). This is the number 1 reason I am not
> > even considering switching from ntvfs to s3fs yet.
> No, not POSIX ACL - just ACLs (and we do have a module for ZFS
> ACLs). Having said that I don't know if that's been tested yet.


This may be pending the change for the nfs4 ACLs code I mentioned to you

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

More information about the samba-technical mailing list