similar to: ACL Anomaly with vfs_acl_xattr on ocfs2 volumes running on ubuntu 18.04

Hi Folks, is the vfs_ceph supporting quota set on a directory inside cephfs? Regards Felix -- Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH 52425 Jülich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir. Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv.

Hi everyone, we are using custom dfree commands to implement quotas. While these work fine on normal shares, the "dfree command" parameter seems to be ignored in the homes section. Is this correct (and intended)? Best regards Felix IT-Services Telefon 02461 61-9243 E-Mail: f.stolte at fz-juelich.de -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hai Felix, It might be handy to show the line your using for dfree. And could you tell us the OS and samba version your using. Last, is this on a member and/or AD-DC ? Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Stolte, Felix via samba > Verzonden: maandag 29 april 2019 9:50 > Aan: samba at

Hi Felix, On 4/18/24 08:33, Stolte, Felix via samba wrote: > Is this a bug or maybe a misconfiguration? In the latter, which parameters could cause this? I guess the nodes end up using different combinations of dev/inode as primary key for the locking.tdb record. Probably because the device numbers differ on the nodes and you didn't fix this known issue with GPFS with the fileid VFS

Hai,   Here you go my output of the R2008R2. (64bit)   1) original GPO from the install ( the domain controller policy ) Path   : Microsoft.PowerShell.Core\FileSystem::C:\Windows\SYSVOL\domain\Policies\{6AC1786C-016F-11D2-945F-00C04fB984F9} Owner  : BUILTIN\Administrators Group  : NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM Access : CREATOR OWNER Allow  268435456          NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users

Hi folks, we are running a clustered Samba Fileserver using CTDB with two public IPs. We observed the following (mis) behavior: If user A with write permissions opens an excel file via public ip A and User B opens the same file via public ip B, both users get a Deny-Write lock on the same file and overwrite each others changes: 0:3693691 145522 DENY_WRITE 0x12019f RDWR

Hey all, up until 2 weeks ago my samba DC was running just fine, then it began crashing randomly. I was using 4.8.0 before, now upgraded to a self-compiled 4.8.3 with default build parameters on an up-to-date centos 7.5 with disabled SELinux and bind9 as DNS backend with samba_dlz. The log output at log level = 10 is as follows: Jul 17 14:49:20 hostname samba[4998]: [2018/07/17 14:49:20.587655,

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:19:50AM +0200, David Disseldorp via samba wrote: > Hi Felix, > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:30:17 +0200, Felix Stolte via samba wrote: > > > is the vfs_ceph supporting quota set on a directory inside cephfs? > > Not at this stage. CephFS uses a non-standard (xattr) interface for > quotas, which is not currently supported by Samba.

I'm struggling with a permission problem on a samba server that is configured to resolve unix uids and gids via nss using sssd. This mostly works. The windows side sees files as being owned by SID=S-1-22-<unix uid of user> and the group is SID=S-1-22-<unix gid of group> This all works fine for files owned by the windows user, or files that are world readable, but fails for

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:24:31 +0100 L.P.H. van Belle <belle at bazuin.nl> wrote: > Hai Rowland, > > Can post your exact command you used, so im sure i dont get different > outputs. > OK, on a windows 21012R2 DC: Get-Acl C:|Windows\SYSVOL\sysvol\domain.local\Policies\'{5FD30AA2-B678-422C-9C0E-4E270488EDE4}' | Format-List NOTE: The above is all one line. Which

No, I dont agree/believe you.. ... because of my setup. On the a samba member. ( 4.5/4.6) getent group "Domain Admins" domain admins:x:10001:admin,administrator I run more then a year like this. On the Samba DC ( 4.5.3) NTDOM\domain admins:x:3000008 All others are ok on the dc. BAZRTD\domain users:x:10000 BAZRTD\domain guests:x:10002: It works fine here, this is what i want.

Thanks to Jason Balicki for the correct fix to this problem. The 'webclient' service in Windows XP, somehow interferes with access to the Samba server. With the service stopped and disabled, the clients are working again. Lane Beneke; IT Manager Stephenson Millwork Co., Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Lane Beneke [mailto:lane.b@smcinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:42 PM

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:26:03 -0800 Kris Lou via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hang on, can you explain this a little further? I thought that Domain > Admins was issued gidNumber 512 by default. In addition, sysvolreset > is not recommended to fix potential SysVol replication problems with > GPO perms? > No Domain Admins doesn't get gidNumber 512 by default,

Hi all, we use SLES 11 and Lustre 1.8.1.1 + patches and like convert a lustre FS using external journals to one with async journals enabled. Question is whether the procedure: umount <filesystem> on all clients umount <osts> on all OSSes e2fsck <ost-device> on all OSSes for all all OSTs tune2fs -O ^has_journal <ost-device> on all

This is really strange. The samba server in question is a domain member server on a Windows NT 4.0 Domain network. It runs Gentoo 2004.3 with a 2.4.24 kernel. The Gentoo server was upgraded from Samba 3.0.5 to 3.0.8 last night. After the upgrade, the server had to be re-joined to the domain. After that, everything appeared to be working. This morning we found that the MSAccess database files

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens > Rowland penny via samba > Verzonden: donderdag 4 juli 2019 16:05 .... > > > Here it is in big letters: > > DO NOT TOUCH THE 'SHARE' TAB ON WINDOWS, THERE IS NO NEED! That all depends on the setup and if you know that your doing, there is no problem with changing

Hi Michael, I am wondering about the meaning of the cmake flags LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX and > LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI. Are they used to indicate that if the C/C++ compiler > for building LLVM is clang, and if this clang has support for libc++ with > libc++Abi, that both lib++ and libc++abi should be used (instead of linking > to the default, which at least on Linux is libstdc++)? Yes that

Hi Jack, Ross & all... We have been working with V-Trails in refining their solution for Mp3 streaming and will be bearing the fruits of this labor starting this weekend publicly with 5 different "Audiorealm Network" stations for first initial public testing - after final testing we look to release this solution NETWORK wide - making the Audiorealm.com Network effectively the first

Also please note that there is a description of each option in the CMakeLists.txt :) llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt option(LLVM_ENABLE_MODULES "Compile with C++ modules enabled." OFF) option(LLVM_ENABLE_CXX1Y "Compile with C++1y enabled." OFF) option(LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX "Use libc++ if available." OFF) option(LLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI "Use libc++abi when using

> -----Original Message----- > From: Lane Beneke [mailto:nolawyersallowed@yahoo.com] > A simple upgrade from 3.0.5 to 3.0.8 broke file > sharing on a MSAccess 2k database (Win2k and WinXP > clients.) There are Paradox databases on the same > file-share that are working fine. The log files show > no errors. I'm about to try increasing the debug > level, but can