It lacks the flexibility of Samba, but it does seem to "just work" once it's set up, and it does seem to have pretty good performance. :)Īnd, I concur that, unless these needs are critical for your shop, the native SMB server is the way to go. Ah, well, if there's one thing I've learned about Solaris it's that: "things change". So, finding out that the shiny new server wouldn't happily share these files was a bit of a surprise, especially because this point didn't seem really emphasized in the various sites discussing the new SMB server. I can't think of more than a handful of times that developers overwrote each others files (and generally file locking wouldn't have helped). We didn't worry about the file locking issues because the web developers were (a) mostly using Dreamweaver, which uses its own file based check in/check out methods (b) a fairly small close-knit group and (c) generally responsible for areas without much overlap. Now that may sound like a bad idea at the best of times, but it was an easy way for us to, for example, make some web development areas accessible to folks. Also of note, if you're running SmartOS the choice has been made for you, they make it nearly impossible to run stuff in the global zone (with good reason) so you'll have to use OmniOS, OpenIndiana or Oracle Solaris if you hate Samba.Īnother issue with the native SMB server: it won't share remote filesystems mounted via NFS. If you're a heavy Linux/Samba user now and like some of it's unique features, feel free to stick with it. If you can live with the limitations of the kernel mode server and you don't need zone-level isolation, I think it's the way to go. Of course doesn't do cross-protocol locking (a file locked via SMB is also locked via NFS when nbmand=on is set with the in-kernel server) and doesn't do VSS integration so snapshots show up in the Windows 'Previous Versions' tab in the properties window. None of the Domain controller/AD Master, WINS Server and other niceties of Samba I want to keep symlinks at server, symlinks have to have relative path (for ex./dir2, not /mnt/dir2) and symlinks have to work when I try to connect via Files (Samba, gvfs) at client PC.It'll show up as a directory via SMB, but will be inaccessible. If you share pool/fs, you won't be able to access the contents of pool/fs/subfs without sharing it separately. two filesystems, pool/fs and pool/fs/subfs. If you share a filesystem, sub filesystems are not shared. No following symlinks in shares, unless they are on the same filesystem.So for new shares, zfs create pool/fs a new zfs filesystem, copy data over and share it (instead of sharing an existing directory) Sharing happens at the filesystem level, not the directory level.Samba can run in multiple isolated zones and/or the global zone simultaneously. That said, there are a number of limitations to the Solaris kernel-mode SMB/CIFS server, most notably: If performance is your number one concern, skip samba. Note that I also tried "wide links = yes" to no avail.In my experience the kernel mode server out performed samba with my clients. Here are the contents of my smb.conf file. Here's the output of smbstatus on my server: Samba version 4.3.11-Ubuntu I found some posts indicating similar problems, but I didn't find a solution that worked, or an explanation.Ĭan anyone shed any light or suggest an approach? The DFS advertisements are not generated even if the CIFS option is-advertise-dfs-enabled is set to true. symlinks: Specifies that symlinks are enabled locally for read-write access. no-strict-security: Specifies that clients follow symlinks outside of share boundaries. My internet searches indicate that symbolic links should be supported with SMB 2.0, but I just can't seem to get them to work. Specifies that SMB clients are prevented from seeing symlinks. Unfortunately, that's not an option due to vulnerabilities in that version. I am able to create soft links when I set the protocol to SMB 1.0. Ln: failed to create symbolic link 'foo.link': Operation not supported When I attempt to create a soft link, however, I get an "Operation not supported" error as follows: #ln -s foo.txt foo.link When I mount that share on another Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS client via Samba 2.0, I am able to add and remove files and create hard links from the client. I set up a Samba server with Samba version 4.3.11-Ubuntu on Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS, and created a share. My question below is based on my Linux Server test. To make sure I wasn't reporting a Synology-specific bug, I reproduced it on a Linux Server. Note that I initially found the following problem on a Synology DiskStation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |