On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 13:34 +0200, steve wrote: > On 21/04/12 03:34, simo wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 18:08 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:59:45PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:26:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:55:53AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:04:02PM +0200, Ondrej Valousek wrote: > >>>>>> Hi List, > >>>>>> > > > > >> (By the way, is reexporting nfs with samba really going to work well > >> anyway?) > > > > Not really, it is generally unsupported, except for read only shares. It > > will work in most of the simple cases for writing .. until it breaks :) > > > > Hi > That's worrying. > > We been rw'ing nfs/samba for years. Maybe we're the only ones. nfs3 for > our Linux clients and samba for the rest. Same shared data. Only Posix > acl's though. Maybe that's the simple bit? > Cheers, > Steve Are Samba and NFSd running on the same server, exporting the same data? That is what is expected to work. See 'kernel oplocks' (the default of which will change for 4.0) to allow NFS and Samba to break each other's oplocks. What Simo cautions about is where an NFS server (say a NAS server) exports to some direct NFS clients, and then a 'proxy' Samba server is an NFS client and a Samba server for Windows clients. This 'proxy' setup is considered dangerous. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
