The other day I posted the description below of a problem
I was having when I was mounting from a Sun 7310
server using NFSv3 and NFSv4 from a CentOS 5.3
client.
It turned out that the solution was trivial - all
I needed to do was to use the "noacl" option
in my NFSv3 mount command. I still think that the
client shouldn't have complained about not
being able to preserve file protections since
it was actually to do so.
I'm still not sure if I should try NFSv4 but that's
another issue.
Cordially,
--
Jon Forrest
Research Computing Support
College of Chemistry
173 Tan Hall
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
94720-1460
510-643-1032
1 [nfs3]# touch x
2 [nfs3]# cp -p x y
3 cp: preserving permissions for `y': Operation not supported
4 cp: preserving ACL for `y': Operation not supported
5 [nfs3]# ls -l
6 total 1
7 -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov 3 14:46 x
8 -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov 3 14:46 y
9 [nfs3]# cd /tmp/x/home/jlforrest/nfs4
10 [nfs4]# touch x
11 [nfs4]# cp -p x y
12 [nfs4]# ls -l
13 total 1
14 -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov 3 14:48 x
15 -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov 3 14:48 y
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:40:21PM -0800, Jon Forrest wrote:
> The other day I posted the description below of a problem
> I was having when I was mounting from a Sun 7310
> server using NFSv3 and NFSv4 from a CentOS 5.3
> client.
>
> It turned out that the solution was trivial - all
> I needed to do was to use the "noacl" option
> in my NFSv3 mount command. I still think that the
> client shouldn't have complained about not
> being able to preserve file protections since
> it was actually to do so.
I still don't understand quite what was happening: in the absence of
"noacl", does the client just always claim to support the posix acl
xattr's, but return an error when cp attempts to set them?
--b.
>
> I'm still not sure if I should try NFSv4 but that's
> another issue.
>
> Cordially,
>
> --
> Jon Forrest
> Research Computing Support
> College of Chemistry
> 173 Tan Hall
> University of California Berkeley
> Berkeley, CA
> 94720-1460
> 510-643-1032
>
> 1 [nfs3]# touch x
> 2 [nfs3]# cp -p x y
> 3 cp: preserving permissions for `y': Operation not supported
> 4 cp: preserving ACL for `y': Operation not supported
> 5 [nfs3]# ls -l
> 6 total 1
> 7 -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov 3 14:46 x
> 8 -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov 3 14:46 y
> 9 [nfs3]# cd /tmp/x/home/jlforrest/nfs4
> 10 [nfs4]# touch x
> 11 [nfs4]# cp -p x y
> 12 [nfs4]# ls -l
> 13 total 1
> 14 -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov 3 14:48 x
> 15 -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov 3 14:48 y
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> I still don't understand quite what was happening: in the absence of
> "noacl", does the client just always claim to support the posix acl
> xattr's, but return an error when cp attempts to set them?
I didn't monitor the wire so I can only guess.
My guess is 'yes'. However, given that the client
also falsely that it couldn't preserve permissions
I'm not sure what's really going on.
--
Jon Forrest
Research Computing Support
College of Chemistry
173 Tan Hall
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
94720-1460
510-643-1032
jlforrest-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/[email protected]