similar to: static vs shared modules build

> no, it only has a theoretical impact on the number of open > filehandles, theroretical means in that context surely not relevant > for a fileserver > > if you have a preforking service and expect many thousand forkers than > it may become relevant Thank you Would you give the same advice in the case of a Samba 4 AD Domain Controller?

Am 12.03.2016 um 19:48 schrieb Miguel Medalha: > Since all my Samba AD member servers rely on vfs_acl_xattr to take care > of Windows permissions, is there any performance advantage to building > samba with a static vfs_acl_xattr module? > > (./configure --with-static-modules=vfs_acl_xattr) no, it only has a theoretical impact on the number of open filehandles, theroretical means

Am 12.03.2016 um 20:16 schrieb Miguel Medalha: > >> no, it only has a theoretical impact on the number of open >> filehandles, theroretical means in that context surely not relevant >> for a fileserver >> >> if you have a preforking service and expect many thousand forkers than >> it may become relevant > > Would you give the same advice in the case of

> i would give the same device for *any* type of software since the > whole operating system including the kernel itself these days is built > with shared modules and you hardly gain anything measureable just > because one piece of your system is statically compiled > > when it's mostly interesting on very slow embedded devices where it > makes a small difference in

> it may make sense to build others which you really use on every > machine statically to not need to add them in your smb.conf That's what I expected, too. Since then I made some experiences. I built samba 4.3.6 with a static vfs_acl_xattr module. It is builtin alright, it is listed under "Builtin modules" at the output of "smbd -b". Then: -- Comment"vfs

On 16/06/2023 16:20, Tam?s N?meth via samba wrote: > Dear Rowland, > > I'm trying to write a single email answering all the question of your > recent emails: > > >> Hi Tamas, I have been reviewing you numerous posts on this list about >> this project, are you aware that you have been posting for 6 months ? > > Well, not exactly :-) Only 5 months and 5

On 8/18/23 09:55, Sebastian Neustein via samba wrote: > With the default settings of vfs_acl_xattr samba takes posix acls into > account when delivering data - how can I activate > "acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes" > without loosing the information saved in posix acls? Background: our > future file system won't be able to support acls. Sorry, but this is

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Rowland Penny via samba > Verzonden: vrijdag 21 september 2018 10:11 > Aan: samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] [SOLVED] Samba 4: 'Access denied' > error when accessing user profile during logon > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:35:13 +0200 >

Dear Rowland, I'm trying to write a single email answering all the question of your recent emails: > Hi Tamas, I have been reviewing you numerous posts on this list about > this project, are you aware that you have been posting for 6 months ? Well, not exactly :-) Only 5 months and 5 days :-) However, this specific thread is only 9 days old. I had a few mails in january, february,

Hi Ralph > On 8/18/23 09:55, Sebastian Neustein via samba wrote: >> With the default settings of vfs_acl_xattr samba takes posix acls >> into account when delivering data - how can I activate >> "acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes" >> without loosing the information saved in posix acls? Background: our >> future file system won't be able to support

Hello, We've been using samba 3.3.9 with vfs_acl_xattr for some time now, and we do have one issue - when someone moves a file from one place to another (in Windows), it keeps the old ACLs instead of inheriting the new ones. I understand why this is happening (moving as opposed to copying, which actually makes a new file, and thus attains new ACLs as well), so I would just like to know if

Sebastian Neustein wrote: > I have to migrate our data from one old samba server to a new one. Due > to various reasons we had to change some settings. Now I struggle to > get the acls right. > ?Previously the acls were stored via posix and extended attributes, > now they are stored only in extended attributes With the default settings of vfs_acl_xattr samba takes posix acls

I noticed that vfs_acl_xattr doesn't work unless all the inherit and map inherit acl parameters are set to yes. Which is fine but if I turn off inherit owner it completely breaks inheritance and security.NTACL never gets set for the file/directory that's created by the user. I want the uid of the user who's connected to be written and not the owner of the parent directory. Is there

On 18/01/15 15:18, Dr. Harry Knitter wrote: > Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny at googlemail.com> schrieb am 18.01.2015: > > >> Lets deal with the obvious first, your workgroup name, you give it as >> 'mydomain.lan' , now is that the actual workgroup name ? If so, then it >> shouldn't have the dot '.' in it, but > Never had poblems with that. And

>From samba 3.3.0 release notes, it seems like samba 3.3.x is at least experimenting using xattr to store NT ACL, which can eventually provide better NT ACL support. I tried similar features with samba 4.0.0 alpha6, which works very nice. Is there any plan to provide same level of NT ACL support with samba 3.3.x? If there is such plan, any targeted date for that? Thanks, Ying

> FYI, > > I finally succeeded too upload one of the 3 drivers that had problems. > > I didi it with another user (not? with administrator) which is member > of domain admins. > > I deleted it and tried so many times again to upload it anf it failed > with the same error. > > So we're in a process where sometimes it's working sometimes not and > you

On 8/21/23 18:20, Sebastian Neustein wrote: > The storage has come a long way with various changes of the smb.conf. It > is possible that at the time of creation of a file/directory > vfs_acl_xattr was not active. This could mean that the directory does > not have any extended attributes written to it and ACLs are only defined > with POSIX ACLs. In this case I would need a

Dear mailing list members, our Samba server provides several shares, one of them is sometimes (about one time a week) not accessible. The log (level 2) does not provide any hint where the problem could be located, quite contrary to the error message on the mac OS and Windows 10 client side (you have not the required rights), it tells that the authentication is succeeded. Increasing the log level

On 15/06/2023 16:18, Tam?s N?meth via samba wrote: Hi Tamas, I have been reviewing you numerous posts on this list about this project, are you aware that you have been posting for 6 months ? In your last post there was this: [quote] this "piling up" of ACL information doesn't happen either on a native Windows file server or with vfs_acl_xattr [/quote] Does this mean you do not

On Thu Jun 6 14:28:46 2024 Rowland Penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote; > > On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 13:37:34 -0400 > Mark Foley via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > [snip] > > Basically, the old NT4-style domains relied on setting permissions in > the share part of the smb.conf file, but, by using vfs_acl_xattr, you > can set finer control from