Jerry, You might well be right. But why would the nfs requirement be different from the shared-file-on-local-storage requirement here? The file's perms are 664. So every group member should be able to write to it - and can on local storage. But they can't on gluster-via-nfs. Both cases are users sharing files in a write context. In any case the docs at http://gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/Gluster_3.1_NFS_Guide say nothing about setting gluster's nfs service for a umask. Doesn't posix call for consistent behavior here? 664 perms should allow group members to edit the file no matter how the file system is mounted, shouldn't they? A umask in my experience is for default perms on file creation. The file here already exists with other perms. It may well be the case that we don't want files to be group-editable by default, but we certainly do when the perms are set for that. Best, Whit On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0700, Gally, Jerry wrote: > I am a gluster newbie, and we don't use nfs with it, but it seems (at > least to me) that if you have 2 users sharing files in a write context, > especially where resulting temp file namespace may clash, having their > umask group write permissions enabled would be a reasonable requirement. >
