[Samba] More on the archive bit
kincera at gmail.com
Sun Sep 3 20:00:58 GMT 2006
I have more information on the behavior. I'm going to send this to the
list as well.
I have set up a test environment running Ubuntu 6.06 server with Samba
3.0.22 to make sure there isn't anything bug specific going on since Red
Hat seems to use an older version (their own back-port flavor of 3.0.10).
The setting of the archive bit by applications seems a bit strange. It
seems some applications do and some don't.
Will set the archive bit on edit
Will not set the archive bit on edit
My first very uneducated guess is that the mechanism the programs use to
actually modify the file on disk and save changes is different in a way
that breaks archive bit behavior on Samba for some and not others.
I'll keep digging into Google, but meanwhile back at the ranch, any ideas?
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Aaron Kincer wrote:
>> Figures. They have a surprisingly negative view of Samba.
>> I am not extrapolating, I'm going by what a support
>> tech said on the phone. Not sure what their issue is.
>> My guess would be that either they have an
>> upcoming service of their own to compete with
>> Samba or they've gotten burned by using old
>> packages and having to support them.
> There's a couple of things at play. First is that
> RH never updates packages after a RHEL release.
> This is not specific to Samba. So the KB articles were
> in fact a quick workaround for that version. But the
> issues have since been fixed.
>> Either way, I've got that set to no. You think I should
>> set it to yes? I'll give it a shot after business hours
> If you are on a recent version of Samba, then yeah.
> Just let the default values be your guide.
>> Could that be causing me to have failure with setting/clearing
>> the archive bit? I noticed that my own user account caused
>> this log message despite being a member of the
>> read/write group on a file:
>> akincer opened file personal/foo.TXT read=Yes write=No (numopen=3)
> Probably not the SPNEGO setting. But take a look at the
> "map readonly" option. It could be a read only DOS bit that
> is the problems.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba