toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

RE: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by Muhlestein, Mark 21 Jun '99

21 Jun '99

I'm happy you were able to get the NT reskit chown to work. In the spirit of collegiality that so far has pervaded the toasters list, perhaps you could provide an example of how you did it? As far as I can see the "F-ing Manual" (in this case the "F" is richly deserved) says little more about chown other than to state that it is present. And I already gave an example of the "usage" output when no arguments are supplied. Can you give me a pointer to the manual or help file or doc file for this? Ever curious, I downloaded the sources for the NT POSIX commands, and chown.exe just uses the NT POSIX subsystem "chown()" call which takes a 32 bit numeric UID. It is hard to see how that can be used to set the normal NT security information. I am curious how you were able to use that chown to help administer NT boxes. Are you positive it wasn't the MKS toolkit chown? And if you did do it, were you able to set the owner to something other that yourself (i.e. other than a "take ownership")? The sources did solve the mystery of why the "usage" was asking for a group: the chown and chgrp commands use the same executable, and the command looks at the third byte of the command to see if it is "o" (lower case only) to see if it's chown or chgrp. I was typing "f:chown", so the third byte was 'c'. As I said, these NT POSIX commands are pretty crude. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 11:34 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > You're right! I forgot about the NT POSIX tools. But I was unable to ever get > the 'chown' command to work. This stuff is pretty crude. MKS Toolkit is far > superior. Has anyone ever gotten the NT reskit 'chown' to work? Here's what I > get from the very latest version: I had it working even programatically, in the times when I was foolish enough to administer NT boxes. I can say one thing, I'm glad I went back to my roots before this Melissa and other e-mail worms poop hit the fan. My advice on getting chown to work: RTFM. Tom

1 0

RE: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by Muhlestein, Mark 20 Jun '99

20 Jun '99

You're right! I forgot about the NT POSIX tools. But I was unable to ever get the 'chown' command to work. This stuff is pretty crude. MKS Toolkit is far superior. Has anyone ever gotten the NT reskit 'chown' to work? Here's what I get from the very latest version: C:\WTSRV\Profiles\mmm.000>f:chown usage: f:chown [-Rf] group file ... C:\WTSRV\Profiles\mmm.000>f:chown nt-domain\tgroup xx f:chown: unknown group id: nt-domain/tgroup Maybe it would work if it were running in a POSIX NT subsystem. And why does it say you should supply a group? If someone wants to dig into it and figure out why it doesn't work that would be good. In the meantime, as I mentioned before, there are other programs like "subinacl" and "cacls" that I know do work to natively manipulate the NT security settings. Mark -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 10:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents For those of us who are unfamiliar with the contents of the NT RK, here is the info from WHGIII's playground: ---- Microsoft Windows NT Questions and Answers How can I ease the transition from UNIX to Microsoft Windows NT? There are a several utilities in the Windows NT Resource Kit that will be familiar to the UNIX user. Among them are: ar.exe, cat.exe, cc.exe, chmod.exe, chown.exe, cp.exe, devsrv.exe, find.exe, grep.exe, ld.exe, ln.exe, ls.exe, make.exe, mkdir.exe, mv.exe, rm.exe, rmdir.exe, sh.exe, touch.exe, vi.exe, and wc.exe. When using these from the DOS shell you do not need to type the file extension. When in the 'sh' shell the extensions must be used. Please note that these files execute in upper case. Once SH.EXE has been started, an alias can be created to change case and form e.g. alias cat=CAT.EXE. These utilities will allow you to leverage your UNIX script file investment. ---- Source: http://www.microsoft.com/SalesInfo/QA/QA5909.HTM

2 1

RE: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Have you tried using the "/o" option of scopy? That should copy the owner information, and the mapped UNIX owner should show up correctly. One thing to keep in mind is that if a file has NTFS-style security the UNIX perms are only display perms. The actual permission checking is always done using the ACL. NFS accesses use the mapped NT account to check access of files with ACLs. (And of course, files with UNIX-style security always use the UNIX identity, native or mapped.) Again, many of these questions are answered in the 5.3 security troubleshooter: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/index.s… Good luck, Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Gregory M. Paris [mailto:paris@bose.com] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 10:01 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: paris(a)bose.com Subject: Re: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership Toasters, Happily, the answer to my question was simple indeed (given that we're running a 5.3 variant of OnTap). The answer was supplied by a helpful NetApp employee, who apparently didn't cc the list with the answer, so I'll repeat it here: options wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root off This allows me to have administrative access with my usual NT account (by virtue of membership in Domain Admins), yet files created by my NT account are owned by my UNIX account (not root) on the UNIX side. Really, it does seem to be the cake I was looking to have and eat, since on the NT side, the ownership of such files is FILER\Administrators, as would be expected. I must say that the documentation on this option is a bit terse. True, the name of the option is almost long enough to be self-documenting :-), but the description of exactly what the option does and why one might fiddle with it needs some fleshing out. Now all we have to do is fix all my users' NT files, since they're all owned by Administrators (root on the UNIX side) when we scopy them over to the filer. Perhaps the chown command is the solution here.... Any thoughts? Thanks everybody for your help. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

Re: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Gregory M. Paris 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Toasters, Happily, the answer to my question was simple indeed (given that we're running a 5.3 variant of OnTap). The answer was supplied by a helpful NetApp employee, who apparently didn't cc the list with the answer, so I'll repeat it here: options wafl.nt_admin_priv_map_to_root off This allows me to have administrative access with my usual NT account (by virtue of membership in Domain Admins), yet files created by my NT account are owned by my UNIX account (not root) on the UNIX side. Really, it does seem to be the cake I was looking to have and eat, since on the NT side, the ownership of such files is FILER\Administrators, as would be expected. I must say that the documentation on this option is a bit terse. True, the name of the option is almost long enough to be self-documenting :-), but the description of exactly what the option does and why one might fiddle with it needs some fleshing out. Now all we have to do is fix all my users' NT files, since they're all owned by Administrators (root on the UNIX side) when we scopy them over to the filer. Perhaps the chown command is the solution here.... Any thoughts? Thanks everybody for your help. Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

1 0

Re: Backup
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

On 06/18/99 09:02:37 you wrote: >I am experiencing a problem with dump since upgrading the filers to >5.2.2. I contacted Netapp for help as you can see below. Netapp >is still working on this problem and said no one has reported anything >like this and this is first of its kind. This bug is described on NOW. >Netapp cannot duplicate the >problem because they don't have autoloader inhouse. Since when??? >I was hoping perhap >you can contact some of your customers who has a simular setup as I do >here. I have a DLT4700 connected to a filer. I wish they had emailed me before they got rid of the DLT4700s they had; I would have taken them off their hands. I would try talking to a different support person who knows what they are talking about. Bruce

2 1

Re: Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

On 06/19/99 00:26:03 you wrote: >There are a several utilities in the Windows NT Resource Kit that will be >familiar to the UNIX user. Among them are: > >devsrv.exe As a UNIX user I can't say I'm familiar with this one. Bruce

2 1

Windows NT Resource Kit partial contents
by tkaczma＠gryf.net 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the contents of the NT RK, here is the info from WHGIII's playground: ---- Microsoft Windows NT Questions and Answers How can I ease the transition from UNIX to Microsoft Windows NT? There are a several utilities in the Windows NT Resource Kit that will be familiar to the UNIX user. Among them are: ar.exe, cat.exe, cc.exe, chmod.exe, chown.exe, cp.exe, devsrv.exe, find.exe, grep.exe, ld.exe, ln.exe, ls.exe, make.exe, mkdir.exe, mv.exe, rm.exe, rmdir.exe, sh.exe, touch.exe, vi.exe, and wc.exe. When using these from the DOS shell you do not need to type the file extension. When in the 'sh' shell the extensions must be used. Please note that these files execute in upper case. Once SH.EXE has been started, an alias can be created to change case and form e.g. alias cat=CAT.EXE. These utilities will allow you to leverage your UNIX script file investment. ---- Source: http://www.microsoft.com/SalesInfo/QA/QA5909.HTM

1 0

RE: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Actually, I don't think there is a "chown" in the NT reskit (as it is called by the cognoscenti :-), but there is a command called "subinacl.exe" which allows you to do various manipulations of the NT security information on files, including changing ownership. NT security folks make much of the fact that administrator privilege does not allow you to set ownership, only take it, the idea being that you can't cover your tracks if you operate on a file as administrator that you had been blocked from via an ACL. However, it turns out that you really need to do this from time to time, so there are ways to do it if you need to, as long as you have the 'backup' and 'restore' NT privileges, which Admins have by default. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:56 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS Administrators vs file ownership On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Keith Brown wrote: > So.... I'll fire you my "ntchown" tool under separate cover. You'll be my > second customer for it. I haven't exactly "tested the living daylights out > of it", but I'm pretty confident it works under most scenarios, as it's > really very simple. BTW, I think there is a chown in the NT Server (?) Resource Kit, which in my opinion should have been a part of the NT Server package. If the Exploder is a part of the OS such tools certainly are. However, as I recall there might have been a problem in the fact that the ACLs would be screwed up (owner/creator permissions, etc. would be different then expected) after chowning a file. Tom

2 1

RE: Named Pipes?
by Muhlestein, Mark 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

The important point is that if a CIFS client is trying to open a named pipe on a server it means that it is trying to connect to a piece of software running on that server, since NT named pipes are not filesystem objects, but rather are created by server applications. Since the filer does not run NT apps, that will fail. The way Oracle on NT works is that you have an Oracle instance running on an NT server, and the Oracle clients use some protocol to connect to the Oracle server. If you want to use the filer for the back-end storage, you tell the Oracle server to use a remote disk resource, which results in a CIFS connection to the filer. Here is a write-up that may have some useful details for anyone looking at using a filer as a back-end for an NT database: http://www.netapp.com/technology/level3/3048.html Good luck, Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com BTW Tom that overview of named pipes I was looking for is at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/sdkdoc/winbase/pipes_6nqr.htm -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:44 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Named Pipes? On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Muhlestein, Mark wrote: > On NT an application on the server side has to open a named > pipe in order for it to be used. With NT there is no way for two different > clients to 'open' a named pipe on a third box like you can with a UNIX named > pipe special device. I have never said this. That is what you implied. I said that you place the named pipe on the NFS filesystem and then if you access it through the same mount on the same machine it will take data from one process to another. I said that that was all that would happen as far as I knew. As for NT I said that I would not know where to begin to open a named pipe. However, if NTFS (CIFS/SMB really) supports writing named pipes it should work whether the CIFS volume is on a real NT server or a real (tic) Network Appliance. > The named pipe is actually created by the server app and > does not have an independent existence. If it doesn't have an existence aside from the server app then what is the point of putting it on a filesystem. Filesystems are usually designed to hold persistent data. > For some background on NT named pipes see > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/1/50.asp > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q126/7/66.asp I read the first one, and now understand your skew. What you should have really said is that the named pipes will not be stored on the CIFS filesystem and thus the question is irrelevant. The server running the database will create the named pipe as a resource separate from the filesystem storing the database. If the database clients connecting to the server require that the named pipe and the database file reside on the same host (I don't see why the clients should look at the file at all, but some old decripid databases have no concept of server only cooperating clients) then this will not work. However, I venture to say that this is not the case and in theory if you (the original poster) can keep the database file on another NT server you should be able to keep that file on the NetApp as well with no problems. Bear in mind that, as our colleague Mark said, the NetApp is not a database server and will not act as one. You should trreat a NetApp as a very intelligent disk, that is all that it is, a file server. > There are better ones than these, but while I was looking for them Microsoft's > web site went down... If you find them please jot me a note, I'm curious about this stuff. BTW, with NT there is a way to open a named pipe between 2 processes on 2 different boxes, with UNIX it must be on the same system and mount point AFAICT. Tom

1 0

CIFS Administrators vs file ownership
by Gregory M. Paris 19 Jun '99

19 Jun '99

Toasters, We've recently received our first filer, an F740 with NFS and CIFS. We're in the process of working out all the issues and procedures before we deploy the device. The issue we're struggling with at the moment involves people with NT Administrator access. In the NT world, we admins are used to having accounts with Administrator access (by virtue of being Domain Admins). It never matters to us that our files get created with ownership of "Administrators". In the UNIX world, we're used to using "su" to get root access when we need it. All of our own files are owned by our respective accounts, not root. We intend to merge our UNIX and NT home directories, but life is not smooth for we admins. When we create files on the filer from the NT world, they're owned by Administrator; that's OK. But on the UNIX side, they show up as being owned by root; that's not. We'd like to have our admin access cake and eat it too. In other words, what we'd like is to have our NT Administrator access, but have files get created with our respective ownerships, not root's. How do the rest of you work this issue? Greg -- Gregory M. Paris CIS Engineering Systems Bose Corporation Email: paris(a)bose.com The Mountain Phone: +1 508 766-6080 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 FAX: +1 508 820-0173

3 2

Jump to page:

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