Jean-Christophe Delaye
2009-Nov-18 10:35 UTC
[Samba] Samba 3.4.2 with Solaris ZFS Snaphots
Hi,
I'm trying to make samba working with Solaris ZFS Snaphots.
Solaris 10 is running on a x64/X86 box which is both Samba (3.4.2)
server and Zfs server.
I created home/delaye filesystem with home zfs pool.
# zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
home 1.98G 2.60M 1.98G 0% ONLINE -
home/delaye 2.47M 1.95G 1.66M /home/delaye
Snapshots are named with the syntax @GMT-`date -u +%Y.%m.%d-%H.%M.%S`
and created using
# zfs snapshot home/delaye at GMT-`date -u +%Y.%m.%d-%H.%M.%S`
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
home 1.80M 1.95G 23K /home
home/delaye 1.70M 1.95G 1.67M /home/delaye
home/delaye at GMT-2009.11.18-10.01.13 31K - 1.67M -
samba supports shadow copy (and zfs acl) as Build Options.
smbd -b
vfs_shadow_copy2_init
vfs_shadow_copy_init
vfs_zfsacl_init
Builtin modules:
pdb_ldap pdb_smbpasswd pdb_tdbsam pdb_wbc_sam rpc_lsarpc rpc_winreg
rpc_initshutdown rpc_dssetup rpc_wkssvc rpc_svcctl rpc_ntsvcs
rpc_netlogon rpc_netdfs rpc_srvsvc rpc_spoolss rpc_eventlog rpc_samr
idmap_ldap idmap_tdb idmap_passdb idmap_nss nss_info_template auth_sam
auth_unix auth_winbind auth_wbc auth_server auth_domain auth_builtin
auth_netlogond vfs_default vfs_solarisacl
I tried to configure a share in smb.conf supporting zfs snapshot as
shadow copy provider with the following:
[delaye]
comment = JCD
path = /home/delaye
read only = No
writable = yes
acl check permissions = No
hide dot files = No
oplocks = No
level2 oplocks = No
vfs objects = shadow_copy2
shadow:snapdir = /home/delaye/.zfs/snapshot
shadow:basedir = /home/delaye
but I never see any previous version for files from client PC running XP
(SP3) accessing to this samba share.
Can anyone help to troubleshoot this? Does anybody have a running setup
for Solaris zfs snapshots ?
Thanks
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:35:49 +0100 Jean-Christophe Delaye
<Jean-Christophe.Delaye at eurecom.fr> wrote:
JCD> Hi,
JCD> I'm trying to make samba working with Solaris ZFS Snaphots.
JCD> Solaris 10 is running on a x64/X86 box which is both Samba (3.4.2)
JCD> server and Zfs server.
JCD> I created home/delaye filesystem with home zfs pool.
.....
....
JCD> Can anyone help to troubleshoot this? Does anybody have a running setup
JCD> for Solaris zfs snapshots ?
We are extensively using ZFS snapshots with samba, it works like a charm.
We use the patches from http://www.edplese.com/samba-with-zfs.html
this give us freedom in naming convention
they still can be applied (manuallly) to
samba-3.4.x/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy.c
[homes]
comment = Home directories
browseable = no
public = no
read only = no
inherit permissions = yes
delete readonly = yes
map archive = no
map readonly = no
# vfsobject = shadow_copy, zfsacl
vfsobject = shadow_copy
shadow_copy: sort = desc
shadow_copy: path = .zfs/snapshot
shadow_copy: format = $Y-$m-$d
hide files = /?esktop.ini/*utloo*.lnk/*Briefcase*/*RECYCLE*/
--
Jean-Jacques Moulis Tel: (013) 281684
ISY Fax: (013) 139282
Link?ping University E-mail: jj at isy.liu.se
581 83 Link?ping
Jean-Jacques Moulis <jj at isy.liu.se> wrote:> We use the patches from http://www.edplese.com/samba-with-zfs.html > this give us freedom in naming convention > they still can be applied (manuallly) toSure? On 3.4.2, when I try to apply this patches only dirent-fix.patch is applicable. The other two are being rejected. Ralf
Hi, Sorry for the lack of proper threading, but I wasn't subscribed to the list at the time. On Nov 26, 2009, Jeremy Allison wrote:> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:09:16PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:05:07AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > > We are extensively using ZFS snapshots with samba, it works like a charm. > > > > > > > > We use the patches from http://www.edplese.com/samba-with-zfs.html > > > > this give us freedom in naming convention > > > > they still can be applied (manuallly) to samba-3.4.x/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy.c > > > > > > Hmmm - these patches look really interesting ! I wonder > > > how they didn't get added into mainline source code.... > > > > Maybe because nobody wants to touch the shadow_copy module? > > shadow_copy2 is the one that has seen fixes lately, I have > > some patches for shadow_copy2 that are still pending to be > > merged upstream.What patches are currently pending? Do any of them eliminate the need for some of the ZFS patches?> Ah ok, didn't realize the difference between the two. > Maybe we should remove the vfs_shadow_copy and concentrate > everything on vfs_shadow_copy2 (and look at merging these > patches).Has anyone else started merging these patches to the shadow_copy2 module? If not, I'll get started with it. Ed Plese