Simo simo at samba.org
Wed Jun 25 08:04:15 MDT 2014

On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 19:07 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> G'Day,
> Seeing what looks like a really interesting module in vfs_snap, and
> thinking about the trouble folks running btrfs and zfs have with Samba,
> having to run specific modules, I wondered if we should have a new,
> meta-module: vfs_auto
> That is:  We can detect almost as well as the system administrator what
> VFS modules they need for specific back-end file systems, and we hide so
> much of our correctness code behind optional, off by default modules.
> This is all OK if our users are NAS vendors and others who control the
> end environment, and so know to turn on modules, but what about everyone
> else?  Why shouldn't Samba 'just work' with a bare minimum of
> configuration?  Why should good features like streams support, snapshot
> creation, copy_chunk or full NT ACLs be hidden inside otherwise unknown
> modules?
> We do this already for POSIX ACLs, with vfs_default calling into the
> 'right' ACL code as detected at build time, but could we do this in
> general, including for other features?
> We also do this already for LDB, with samba_dsdb being the meta-module
> loading the correct other modules. 
> It would also allow us to handle better what is done in loadparm for the
> AD DC, as the default VFS modules could vary based on server role. 
> We could handle the upgrade problem by leaving the default to be "", but
> to encourage folks to set it to "auto" in documentation and examples.
> Folks that want strict control and no changes could still specify an
> exact set of modules.
> What do others think?  Does someone want to have a go at implementing
> this?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Bartlett

I think an installer script that produces a smb.conf file based on
probing the system would be a *lot* better option.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list