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

Andriy Syrovenko andriys at
Fri Jun 15 02:59:40 MDT 2012

2012/6/14 Jeremy Allison <jra at>:
> 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.

I get the following during provision of beta1 on FS that only supports

get_nt_acl_no_snum: fset_nt_acl returned zero.
ProvisioningError: Your filesystem or build does not support posix
ACLs, s3fs is unworkable in this mode


More information about the samba-technical mailing list