[Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas
anrdaemon at yandex.ru
Sat Jun 1 13:20:44 UTC 2019
Greetings, Greg Sloop!
> I'll quote the whole thing, because it's useful.
> That's because the concept of a btrfs "subvolume" completely
> breaks the POSIX idioms that smbd depends on.
> We absolutely identify a file by a dev/ino pair, and
> expect the dev to remain consistent under an exported
> share path.
> If you sub-mount this also breaks smbd dfree/quotas, and
> that's a lot more common.
> This identity is baked into Samba in order to implement
> leases/oplocks and it's not going to change.
> Not to be unduly glib - but that explanation really means nothing to me.
> I'm sure this takes the thread way OT, so I'm fine with the OP quashing
> this branch - but let me see if I get this.
> I'll assume a "dev/ino pair" means device+inode pair. Meaning we can
> identify the files by their dev+inode - and enforce quota etc.
> Is that a correct assumption?
> Since I only vaguely know what a btrfs subvolume is - I will again assume
> we're talking about essentially an independent mount point. Most
> importantly, this gives the files in the subvolume a new set of dev+inode
> identifiers. So, if we use dev+inode to control quota, we have a problem
> because we now have two sets of dev+inodes that point to the same
> data/files. And managing quotas would be pretty difficult. [Essentially not
> possible given the methods currently used by Samba.]
> So, do I have that mostly right? ['cause I'm doing a lot of guessing here.]
> HFvs> And wouldn't that also be applicable to zfs?
> I know some about ZFS from a conceptual POV, but not sure if this applies or not.
> But, my larger general question was: This only applies to btrfs [or perhaps
> ZFS] when you're trying to enforce a quota _in Samba_ on a set of
> directories/files where there is a subvolume. Is that correct?
> And the result is that quota management will essentially be undefined. It
> doesn't crash things, or corrupt them, but you can't rely on the quota
> enforcement being accurate/consistent. Is that also correct?
> So, in btrfs [and perhaps ZFS] if you're _*not* using subvolumes_ and you
> _are enforcing quotas in Samba_, this isn't going to cause an issues.
> Or you could be using subvolumes, but not enforcing quotas. And this will work fine.
> The only problem set is where you're both enforcing quota in samba, and are using a sub-volume.
> Again, do I have that right? [Probably I'm missing something, somewhere.]
I'd also like to hear the answer.
Because from my casual PoV, having two systems fight to make something happen
(BTRFS and Samba trying to manage quotas at the same time), nothing good
would happen. Choose one, and stick with it.
With best regards,
Saturday, June 1, 2019 16:18:58
Sorry for my terrible english...
More information about the samba