Bing Zhang
2002-Aug-18 22:27 UTC
[Samba] Challenge to experts: Is archive bit so difficult?
I have had this problem for more than one year and have asked this same question twice on this list without any answears for past two years. So I assume that this question is quite difficult unless I really missed something, :-). We are using Samba 2.2.0 on RedHat 7.2 with domain authentication on NT 4.0 server. We are using NTbackup on a NT BDC to backup samba shares via mapped drives. The problem is that the incremental backup is same as normal whole backup which consumes lots of tapes. I believed this is because the backup operator is not able to turn off the archive bit after each backup. For the backup operator on NT side, we created an exact username on linux with root previlige. This operator is also a samba administrator. DOS file mode and map archive bit are both enabled. Still if I login in as backup operator on NT box and issue attrib -a filename on a file not owned by the operator, the operation failed. All the files belong to a group called user. This group can read the file but do not have write right on the files not owned by them. But since the operator is in root group, this should not matter. I search the archive and someone mentioned that samba 2.2.4 fixed something to make BackupExec to work. I upgraded to samba 2.2.5, however it did not solve my problem. Thanks, Bing Zhang
>From: Bing Zhang <bzhang@sohar.com> >To: "'samba@lists.samba.org'" <samba@lists.samba.org> >Subject: [Samba] Challenge to experts: Is archive bit so difficult? >Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:27:45 -0700 > >For the backup operator on NT side, we created an exact username on linux >with root previlige. This operator is also a samba administrator. DOS file >mode and map archive bit are both enabled. Still if I login in as backup >operator on NT box and issue attrib -a filename on a file not owned by the >operator, the operation failed. All the files belong to a group called user. >This group can read the file but do not have write right on the files not >owned by them. But since the operator is in root group, this should not >matter.Ah. possibly not. I think you're hiiting a classic UNIX-side permissions thing. Only the owner of an object (or root) can change the permissions on it. Being in the root group is _not_ good enough. To check this, try logging in directly to the Linux box (on the console, with telnet, etc.) as the backup user and try the equivalent 'chmod' commands yourself. To solve this problem you may find 'force user' a useful option. Mac Assistant Systems Adminstrator @nibsc.ac.uk dmccann@nibsc.ac.uk Work: +44 1707 654753 x285 Everything else: +44 7956 237670 (anytime)
David Brodbeck
2002-Aug-19 05:22 UTC
[Samba] Challenge to experts: Is archive bit so difficult?
Try 'dos filemode = yes'. See the smb.conf manpage for details.
Bing Zhang
2002-Aug-19 06:28 UTC
[Samba] Challenge to experts: Is archive bit so difficult?
I tried that. It does not work. Bing -----Original Message----- From: David Brodbeck To: 'Bing Zhang'; 'samba@lists.samba.org' Sent: 8/19/02 7:20 AM Subject: RE: [Samba] Challenge to experts: Is archive bit so difficult? Try 'dos filemode = yes'. See the smb.conf manpage for details. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba