http://bugs.gluster.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2818 - a bug is applied, easily reproducible through the steps mentioned in the bug . Native FUSE works. On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Whit Blauvelt <whit.gluster at transpect.com>wrote: > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users at gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > -- * Harsha Gluster Inc * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110419/71192997/attachment-0001.htm>
