[Samba] samba + MacOS X

Milan Roubal roubal at midlety.cz
Thu Oct 2 22:59:09 GMT 2003


> Sorry, let me back up a little: I may have not answered your original
> question.
> The file sizes shown in OS-X are guessed 'physical' sizes.  If you 'get
> info' (command-i) on a file, it will show you the actual file size in
> parentheses.  The size in parentheses is what counts for most uses (like
> copying or CD burning).  It looks like OS-X (or is this Samba?) is using
> the wrong block size (256k?) to calculate the total physical file size.

The block size depends on the filesystem size, so on my 1 TB filesystem
is the block size 16 MB!!!!. But what is interesting, when I use native
windows XP sharing, there is 4 kB block size. I am using samba 3.0.0
Please help me to solve this problem, I really need this solved.
    Thanx for any answer
    Milan Roubal
    roubal at a-open.cz

> Here's a sample file I have on my server (remember that Mac's actually
> have two seperate files on the server for both data and resource forks):
> [root at drtheopolis raid]# stat adobejs.txt
>   File: "adobejs.txt"
>   Size: 364             Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096   Regular File
> Device: 901h/2305d      Inode: 60          Links: 1
> Access: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-)  Uid: (  501/    edge)   Gid: (  501/    edge)
> Access: Wed Jul  2 11:58:33 2003
> Modify: Wed Jul  2 11:58:33 2003
> Change: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003
> [root at drtheopolis raid]# stat ._adobejs.txt
>   File: "._adobejs.txt"
>   Size: 1536            Blocks: 8          IO Block: 4096   Regular File
> Device: 901h/2305d      Inode: 61          Links: 1
> Access: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-)  Uid: (  501/    edge)   Gid: (  501/    edge)
> Access: Wed Sep 24 15:35:14 2003
> Modify: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003
> Change: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003
> It seems like it should say that it takes up 8K in harddrive space and
> not 1MB.  Does anyone know where this conversion get mangled?
> In any case, when I copy this file to the Mac, it suddenly 'shrinks' to
> the appropriate physical size of 8k (presumably because my local HD also
> has block sizes of 4K).
> Regarding your other question, Baltra is a patch for Netatalk which
> makes Netatalk store/access files in an OS-X style (vs. the proprietary
> way Netatalk does).  It does UTF8 encoding using the 'iconv' library (I
> think Samba uses the same lib).  That way the file names actually look
> the same for everyone (including Windows folks) and the resource forks
> are preserved regardless of whether you use SMB or AFP (or NFS for that
> matter).  You can get more info on it here:
> http://www.baltra.org
> It's been 'beta' for a long time because there haven't been many changes
> or complaints.  From my experience, it's been stable, but it's always a
> use-at-your-own-risk thing.
> Phil
> Milan Roubal wrote:
> >Thanx for answer, it might help. I will try to upgrade to the latest
> >release
> >ane I will use some of your configs too. What is Baltra patched Netatalk?
> >Its patched for UTF8? Where can i find it? Is it safe for using in
> >production
> >enviroment? Do you have any Windows machines in your network? How they
> >handle UTF8?
> >    Thanx for your help.
> >    Milan Roubal
> >
> >
> >

More information about the samba mailing list