toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13531 discussions

RE: CIFS permissions
by rob.hawley＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

The information below would imply that the user would get by the share permissions. It would still have to also get by the file permissions. You should also confirm the permissions assigned to your user by doing a cifs sessions -s. Here are two articles that will allow you to diagnose security problems: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts2… l http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts1… l This is a more detailed article on the security model http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml If the answer does not fall out of the above troubleshooters (or you need access to NOW), please contact customer support. I would suggest having the qtree type, the output of cifs sessions -s, and the reported ACL for the directory you are trying to write to available when you call. You should also report the version of the filer and the version of the client. They should be able to solve this very quickly. -----Original Message----- From: Gunn, Billy [mailto:bgunn@InterAdNet.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 2:20 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS permissions Hi. I have setup an CIFS share called htdocs. issuing the command 'cifs shares' on the filer returns: htdocs /vol/vol0/media/htdocs INTERADNET\bgunn / Full Control I set up the privaleges so that bgunn would have full control. I can browse the share with no problems however, when attempting to write to the share I get an Access denied error. This share has been mapped to a dirve letter. When viewing the NTFS permissions for the drive it indicates rwx across th board. Is there some other location where permissions are set? Thanks, Billy Gunn Interadnet, Inc.

1 0

CIFS permissions
by Gunn, Billy 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hi. I have setup an CIFS share called htdocs. issuing the command 'cifs shares' on the filer returns: htdocs /vol/vol0/media/htdocs INTERADNET\bgunn / Full Control I set up the privaleges so that bgunn would have full control. I can browse the share with no problems however, when attempting to write to the share I get an Access denied error. This share has been mapped to a dirve letter. When viewing the NTFS permissions for the drive it indicates rwx across th board. Is there some other location where permissions are set? Thanks, Billy Gunn Interadnet, Inc.

1 0

RE: Samba Vs CIFFS
by paul.benn＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

> We use both together... > I think that for simplicity, you should get the NetApp > license and use it... > We use Samba as an helper application for handling > soft-links, which we own a > lot... > NetApp can handle soft-links also, but of course not to > outside machines.... Here's a repost of a message posted on this subject a month ago. Stay Tuned! paul@netapp -----Original Message----- From: Muhlestein, Mark Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 1:21 PM To: 'Timothy Demarest'; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Any way for CIFS to see symlinks across qtrees/shares? That restriction exists to enforce share level ACLs. However, we do have plans to allow such symlinks securely. Unfortunately, I can't give you info on when. I'll add you to the list of folks who have asked for this. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Demarest [mailto:demarest@arraycomm.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 11:31 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Any way for CIFS to see symlinks across qtrees/shares? > > > > Is there any way to set the Filer to allow symbolic links to > traverse other > qtrees? I have a symlink on one CIFS share, which is a qtree, > that points > to a directory on another CIFS share, which is another qtree. > Obviously, > this works fine for NFS clients, but the CIFS clients just > see the symlink > as a regular file, not as a directory. > > Thanks, > Tim > >

1 0

Linux 'disk sleep' process
by Henrique Pantarotto 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hello toaster friends, please forgive me if anyone finds this message to be off-topic. I have POP3 and SMTP daemons running on a Linux server, using a F760 filer with NFS. Often, our Linux server gets a couple of stuck processes, that won't go away. It's not possible to kill them. It has "disk sleep" status, and they cannot receive kill commands. Does anyone knows how can I kill this processes? I have a couple that are over a week old. Thanks a lot! [root@blabla /]# ls /proc/13797/fd -l total 0 lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 0 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 1 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 2 -> socket:[17770653] lrwx------ 1 root root 64 May 30 16:31 3 -> /var/spool/pop/.nfs0015790300007a77 [root@blabla /]# cat /proc/13797/status Name: nnpopper State: D (disk sleep) Pid: 13797 PPid: 557 Uid: 520 520 520 520 Gid: 12 12 12 12 Groups: 0 VmSize: 2176 kB VmLck: 0 kB VmRSS: 856 kB VmData: 312 kB VmStk: 20 kB VmExe: 320 kB VmLib: 1436 kB SigPnd: 0000000000000000 SigBlk: fffffffffffffeff SigIgn: 0000000000000000 SigCgt: 0000000000001001 CapInh: 00000000fffffeff CapPrm: 0000000000000000 CapEff: 0000000000000000 _______________________________________________ Henrique Pantarotto SysOp Site São Paulo Terra Networks Brasil S/A A Internet mais sua do que nunca Tel: (11) 5505-5728 r.316/238 ICQ: 6934285 henrique(a)corp.terra.com.br

1 0

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by rob.hawley＠netapp.com 30 May '00

30 May '00

The NetApp security model is that each file/directory has exactly one type of security style; Unix or NT. When accessing the file from the native security side (i.e. NT accessing a file with ACLs) then Native security rules apply. When accessing from the other side (i.e. NFS accessing a file with an ACL), we must first map the user into an NT user. Once we do that we can use normal ACL rules. Normally we just convert the UID into a user name and then look up the user name in the filer's domain ( or in a list of trusted domains). It is possible to override this default mapping using the mapping file described below. These are used when the names are different on the two sides ( e.g. Administrator on NT and root on UNIX). This is a more detailed article on the security model http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml Here are two articles that will allow you to diagnose security problems: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts2… l http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/ts1… l The console commands wcc and cifs security -s can help in understanding how the mapping operates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. Phone: 408-822-6661 495 East Java Drive FAX: 408-822-4521 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Sterling Woodcock [mailto:sirbruce@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 5:06 PM To: Michael van Elst Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael van Elst" <mlelstv(a)xlink.net> To: "Bruce Sterling Woodcock" <sirbruce(a)ix.netcom.com> Cc: "Michael van Elst" <mlelstv(a)xlink.net>; <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 4:30 PM Subject: Re: NT + Unix access rights > On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 10:14:10AM -0700, Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote: > > > The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' > > > account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged > > > UNIX account different from the file owner. > > > > Can someone explain this? I don't follow. > > The software release 5.3 has the feature to map Accounts independently > for the UNIX side and the NT side. I.e. the usermap file has the lines: > > Administrator <= root > Administrator => ntadmin > > where ntadmin is an unprivileged account and root is the regular > privileged account. Is the mapping only for access, or only for ownership? I understand that if root creates a file, and you look at it from NT, it will be owned by Administrator (with the mapping given above). But when Administrator tries to access it, he'll be mapped to ntadmin, which doesn't have access?? Bruce

1 0

NT + Unix access rights
by Michael van Elst 30 May '00

30 May '00

Hi, I'm using an F740 running 5.3.4R3. One volume uses a qtree with mixed security settings. Within that qtree I have a couple of files that cannot be accessed at all. The files were created by an NT client. On the UNIX side I can neither read nor touch the files. I cannot chmod or chown them. I cannot remove them. I could 'mv' them to a different directory once. I can create a hard link to them but which isn't deletable anymore. The file shows up with 0700 permissions. The directory where the file is located and all directories above were created by a UNIX client. This is true independent on wether I am working as root or as the files' owner (according to the usermap). On the NT side I cannot use the file either and I cannot even look at the security settings for the file. This is also independent of the user. Neither the owner nor the Administrator has access to the file. The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged UNIX account different from the file owner. I learned that the undocumented command 'rm' on the filers console (after rc_toggle_basic) allows to delete these files. Is there anything I can do ? Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 4

RE: NT + Unix access rights
by Graham.Knight＠netapp.com 29 May '00

29 May '00

In NT you can set the ACL of a file so tight that the Administrator cannot read it. What you should try to do is map the drive as Administrator, then Take Ownership of the file. If that succeeds you should be able to set the ACL to whatever you want it to be, or delete the file. Another thing you might want to consider is setting this option: cifs.nfs_root_ignore_acl on This allows a root user on a root mounted NFS partition to do whatever it wants to a file with an ACL. I'm not 100% positive that the option above is available on 5.3.4R3. I know that it is available in 5.3.4R3P2. Graham -----Original Message----- From: Michael van Elst [mailto:mlelstv@xlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:48 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Michael van Elst Subject: NT + Unix access rights Hi, I'm using an F740 running 5.3.4R3. One volume uses a qtree with mixed security settings. Within that qtree I have a couple of files that cannot be accessed at all. The files were created by an NT client. On the UNIX side I can neither read nor touch the files. I cannot chmod or chown them. I cannot remove them. I could 'mv' them to a different directory once. I can create a hard link to them but which isn't deletable anymore. The file shows up with 0700 permissions. The directory where the file is located and all directories above were created by a UNIX client. This is true independent on wether I am working as root or as the files' owner (according to the usermap). On the NT side I cannot use the file either and I cannot even look at the security settings for the file. This is also independent of the user. Neither the owner nor the Administrator has access to the file. The usermap maps the UNIX 'root' account to the NT 'Administrator' account. The NT 'Administrator' account is mapped to an unprivileged UNIX account different from the file owner. I learned that the undocumented command 'rm' on the filers console (after rc_toggle_basic) allows to delete these files. Is there anything I can do ? Regards, -- i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330 Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349 Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/ D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email: hostmaster(a)xlink.net [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe ] [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Koen Bertoen ]

2 1

question about databases on NetApps
by Mike Kazar 28 May '00

28 May '00

Pardon my ignorance, but I have a question for people running databases on NetApp boxes. I've seen a number of notes in the past from people running Oracle or Sybase over NFS to a NetApp box, and I'm puzzled: why run a database over NFS instead of on top of a local disk? Are you running several instances of the database on several hosts, all sharing the same database over NFS? I'm surprised that works reasonably with a log file being hammered on by several different machines (and I don't really understand how it could work at all with several different log files). Also, I would have thought that NFS's loose cache consistency semantics would have prevented sharing a database from working at all, unless use of file locking disables caching appropriately. Or are you just running one database host, and using the NetApp to manage the database host's disk space. If so, what are the advantages you get from using the NetApp for disk space management instead of just using a local disk? Thanks in advance, Mike

3 2

Samba Vs CIFFS
by Philip Thomas 28 May '00

28 May '00

Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

4 3

RE: Samba Vs CIFS
by paul.benn＠netapp.com 27 May '00

27 May '00

Philip, I take it that your going to use a filer anyway (NetApp CIFS/NFS vs. NetApp NFS + Samba)..?? Samba is an interesting application but there are limitations that you should be aware of, especially when considering deployment in a multiprotocol environment and from the perspective of NT only administrators. Since the underlying file system that Samba uses is a UNIX file system, the mocked up NTFS permissions that Samba provides will be based on UNIX and limited to a maximum of three ACEs (access control entries) for each ACL (access control list). One ACE for "owner," one for "group" and one for "world." Because of this, one must set NT file permissions using the individual bits under "Special Access" (you won't be able to use the canned ACEs like "Full Control, Change" etc.). Though not a problem for many, NT admins may not necessarily be comfortable with this. I've actually heard of NT admins who were unaware that the "Change," "Full Control" etc. entries actually represented the lower level permissions bits. NetApp's CIFS makes the filer look just like an NT member server rather than providing an NT facility to manipulate UNIX permissions. If one needs to manipulate UNIX permissions under NT, the SecureShare Access tool (available on NOW and on the DOT CD) can be installed. The tool adds a page to the file properties dialog. Share level ACLs are not only based on UNIX groups, they are set by editing the smb.conf file (by way of vi or SWAT), not Server Manager. Another possible issue for NT admins. Beginning with Data ONTAP 5.3, a limited implementation of Windows NT access logging became available. Success or failure of file reads or writes can be audited. Furthermore, auditing can be set up for files residing in "NTFS" or "Mixed" qtrees. Samba doesn't provide this. Samba also has weaknesses in a true multiprotocol environment. The DOS "archive," "system" and "hidden" bits are mapped to the UNIX "X" bits. If a UNIX admin removes an X bit or if an NT admin flips the archive bit, NT users will be in for a surprise when they can't execute program. Something else to consider is that when a Windows user hides a file, a leading period is not added and the file is NOT hidden for the UNIX user. The reverse _may_ also be true (files hidden with a leading period in UNIX may not be hidden from Windows users). Data ONTAP keeps track of these separately. Furthermore, WAFL keeps an archive bit for UNIX files so that an NT based backup program can do an "incremental" backup of UNIX data (backing up over CIFS retains NT ACLs as well as UNIX permissions). Multiprotocol environments add an interesting twist with respect to file permissions. Remember that Samba can only use UNIX permissions but NetApp filers can be configured to use UNIX and NTFS permissions. Another NT-like edge that WAFL has over Samba is inherited permissions. When a file is copied to a directory or a new file is created in a directory with NTFS-style permissions, that file inherits the permissions of the parent directory. This is also true (as of Data ONTAP 5.3) if a file with UNIX-style permissions is copied to a directory with NTFS-style permissions. The overhead of Samba's group mapping doesn't exist with filers. Because filers map _users_ on the fly, there is no need for group mapping (this is frequently misunderstood and viewed as a limitation). Consider centralized support and administration. If you were to use NetApp's CIFS, you'd have one stop shopping for support, bypassing being stuck between two vendors on some support issues. If Samba support beyond mailing lists is desired, there _is_ cost involved. Administration is centralized on the filer versus filer administration + Samba administration. Again, assuming that you're going to use a filer anyway: **Samba = UNIX rules + two levels of support and administration + painful for NT admins + multiprotocol weaknesses** **NetApp's CIFS = just like NT + centralized support and administration** Hope this helps. Best Regards, Paul Benn Network Appliance -----Original Message----- From: Philip Thomas [mailto:thomas@act.sps.mot.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 10:03 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Samba Vs CIFFS Hi, Why should some one pay good money to buy CIFFS license from NetApp when apparently the similar functionality is available "free", Samba? I am hoping folks out there, with experience in both products would be willing to share their knowledge as much their internal policy allows. I am specifically looking for pros and cons with respect to (a) performance (what ever than means) (b) scalibility (500+ users) (c) reliability (d) functionality (e) coexistence with Windows Terminal Server (f) 'cost' (not just dollars) (g) administration (h) interaction or lack of it with commercial apps ...any thing else ?? Perhaps this list is biased to CIFFS, by definition of the mailing list. But I have seen folks willing to speak out in the past. [BTW, please don't shoot the messenger:-)] Thanks. Philip Thomas Motorola - DDL-ITG, M/S M360 2200 W. Broadway Rd Mesa, AZ 85202 rxjs80(a)email.sps.mot.com (480) 655-3678 (480) 655-3881 (fax)

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters