On 18/05/2019 14:19, Hendrik Friedel wrote:> Hello > >> No, probably a lack of users using your combination of Samba, btrfs >> and quotas. > I would have thought that btrfs is becoming more mainstream now. And > then, Samba and Quotas should be rather common... >>Is btrfs becoming more common ?> >> Of course, more info may help, what is in your smb.conf etc. > Added at the end of this mail. > >> Why are you using a filesystem that your OS doesn't officially support ? > That implies, that it would be better with any other OS. Are you > saying, that this is a known samba bug, that has been fixed, but the > fix has just not yet made it into Debian? Otherwise, I don't > understand the background of the question. > Appart from that: > Btrfs support was introduced in DebianSqueeze > <https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSqueeze>. >You posted this: I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is not actively supporting btrfs It is this that I was referring to.>> > > I tried brtfs several times together with samba and (sorry to say this) > > it just a pain in the a.. Never use it together with quotas or CTDB it > > will crash after short time. I only take xfs and have no problem at > all. > > I don't know wy, but it's not good idea to user brtfs with samba. > > Well, as long as this is not being reported and being improved, it > will remain that way... >Possibly, but it works great with ext4> > I wonder, are your clients Linux or Windows systems? > Windows (10) > > > I wonder if upgrading servers may not be so wise. > What do you mean by that? > > Regards, > Hendrik > > >> >> > > > cat /etc/samba/smb.conf > #======================= Global Settings ======================> [global] > workgroup = WORKGROUP > server string = %h server > dns proxy = no > log level = 1 > log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m > max log size = 1000 > logging = syslog > panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d > encrypt passwords = true > passdb backend = tdbsam > obey pam restrictions = no > unix password sync = no > passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u > passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n > *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . > pam password change = yes > socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY > guest account = nobody > load printers = no > disable spoolss = yes > printing = bsd > printcap name = /dev/null > unix extensions = yes > wide links = no > create mask = 0777 > directory mask = 0777 > use sendfile = yes > aio read size = 16384 > aio write size = 16384 > local master = yes > time server = no > wins support = no > > > [Dokumente] > path = /srv/dev-disk-by-label-DataPool1/Dokumente > guest ok = no > read only = no > browseable = yes > inherit acls = yes > inherit permissions = no > ea support = no > store dos attributes = no > vfs objects > printable = no > create mask = 0664 > force create mode = 0664 > directory mask = 0775 > force directory mode = 0775 > hide special files = yes > follow symlinks = yes > hide dot files = yes > valid users = "henfri" > invalid users > read list > write list = "henfri" >I suggest you sit down with a copy of 'man smb.conf' and remove all the default lines, then add either 'security = user' or 'server role = standalone server', you will also have to remove 'unix password sync = no' and create users (with passwords) to get your Standalone Server working correctly. Rowland
Hello,>Is btrfs becoming more common ?In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and thus all (?) file systems that support checksums and scrubbing in linux; consequently all filesystems that are the choice of users who need this for ensuring data consistency.>You posted this: > >I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is not actively supporting btrfs > >It is this that I was referring to.Ah, yes. OMV intended to move to btrfs as the only choice with the next version. In order to pave the way, I intended to be an early adopter. The problem I report here, that there is good reason to.>> > it just a pain in the a.. Never use it together with quotas or CTDB it >> > will crash after short time. I only take xfs and have no problem at all. >> > I don't know wy, but it's not good idea to user brtfs with samba. >> >>Well, as long as this is not being reported and being improved, it will remain that way... >> >Possibly, but it works great with ext4Glad to hear that.>I suggest you sit down with a copy of 'man smb.conf' and remove all the defaultMy intent is not to solve *my* problem, but to make developers aware of this issue and help getting this issue fixed. I feel a bit helpless though, as I perceive a lack of interest... I mean... This Bug is now celebrating its 5th aniversary. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10541 Greetings, Hendrik
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 05:54:13PM +0000, Hendrik Friedel via samba wrote:> Hello, > > > Is btrfs becoming more common ? > In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and thus > all (?) file systems that support checksums and scrubbing in linux; > consequently all filesystems that are the choice of users who need this for > ensuring data consistency. > > You posted this: > > > > I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is not actively supporting btrfs > > > > It is this that I was referring to. > Ah, yes. > OMV intended to move to btrfs as the only choice with the next version. In > order to pave the way, I intended to be an early adopter. The problem I > report here, that there is good reason to. > > > > > it just a pain in the a.. Never use it together with quotas or CTDB it > > > > will crash after short time. I only take xfs and have no problem at all. > > > > I don't know wy, but it's not good idea to user brtfs with samba. > > > > > > Well, as long as this is not being reported and being improved, it will remain that way... > > > > > Possibly, but it works great with ext4 > Glad to hear that. > > I suggest you sit down with a copy of 'man smb.conf' and remove all the default > My intent is not to solve *my* problem, but to make developers aware of this > issue and help getting this issue fixed. > > I feel a bit helpless though, as I perceive a lack of interest... > I mean... This Bug is now celebrating its 5th aniversary. > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10541That'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. If you want to do this (subvolumes/submounts) I think you should get familiar with the: dfree command: set quota command: set quota command: scripts in smb.conf.
On 20/05/2019 18:54, Hendrik Friedel wrote:> Hello, > >> Is btrfs becoming more common ? > In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and > thus all (?) file systems that support checksums and scrubbing in > linux; consequently all filesystems that are the choice of users who > need this for ensuring data consistency.Not from my experience, but, hey, what do I know ;-)>> You posted this: >> I am using Openmediavault (debian based NAS distribution), which is >> not actively supporting btrfs >> It is this that I was referring to. > Ah, yes. > OMV intended to move to btrfs as the only choice with the next > version. In order to pave the way, I intended to be an early adopter. > The problem I report here, that there is good reason to.For you perhaps, but if OMV will not help, well......> > >> I suggest you sit down with a copy of 'man smb.conf' and remove all >> the default > My intent is not to solve *my* problem, but to make developers aware > of this issue and help getting this issue fixed. > > I feel a bit helpless though, as I perceive a lack of interest... > I mean... This Bug is now celebrating its 5th aniversary. > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10541That sort of says a lot, if it was that big a problem and multiple users were complaining, then it probably would get fixed, but there are only so many developers and they have only so much time available to fix things and add new features, so the most important things get fixed first. We do, however, accept patches to fix things, so perhaps you can get together with OMV and fix it from your end ;-) Rowland
HFvs> In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and I'm mostly interested in the claim that ZFS is affected. I haven't followed this thread carefully, but what exactly is the problem we're talking about, and how do we know it impacts ZFS? [Something more than a single one-liner in that bug report?] Is the extent of the issue that quotas won't work, while enforced from Samba against a ZFS volume? Can someone perhaps enlighten me? :)