The last time the subject of ACLs came up, I sent out a message that said the following:
I'd like to see them support all the different ACL types, Solaris, NT, Digital Unix, Irix, etc. (at least, I think the latter two have them) and have them all interoperate reasonably well. But that's no doubt a big undertaking for Netapp with very little return.
It might make more sense is to wait on a standard ACL protocol (maybe as part of NFS v4) and then implement that and everyone will talk the same language.
I hve reasons to believe the above statement is still an accurate reflection of NTAP's plans. Of course, ACLs for NT were necessary, and given the nature of the next NFS standard it may become important for them to implement Solaris ACLs as well. It will be interesting to see if they can make NT and NFS ACLs interoperate - if anyone can, I'm confident it will be Netapp. :)
Bruce
+----- On Fri, 02 Oct 1998 20:07:01 CDT, writes: | The last time the subject of ACLs came up, I sent | out a message that said the following: | | I'd like to see them support all the different ACL types, Solaris, NT, | Digital Unix, Irix, etc. (at least, I think the latter two have them) | and have them all interoperate reasonably well. But that's no doubt a | big undertaking for Netapp with very little return. | | It might make more sense is to wait on a standard ACL protocol (maybe | as part of NFS v4) and then implement that and everyone will talk the | same language.
The ACL's are handled with a separate protocol which is IMHO the best way to handle them. One only needs to look at the SMB^H^H^HCIFS protocol to see the wisdom of doing it this way. The protocol is even rudimentally described in /usr/include/rpcsvc/nfs_acl.x.
| I hve reasons to believe the above statement is still an accurate | reflection of NTAP's plans. Of course, ACLs for NT were necessary, | and given the nature of the next NFS standard it may become important | for them to implement Solaris ACLs as well. It will be interesting | to see if they can make NT and NFS ACLs interoperate - if anyone can, | I'm confident it will be Netapp. :)
In the mean time it's a plus for Sun and a minus for Network Appliance. After many years of working with Auspex servers I have come to the conclusion that if you want NFS then Sun is your safest bet, if not always fastest or best performance.
/Michael
The ACL's are handled with a separate protocol which is IMHO the best way to handle them. One only needs to look at the SMB^H^H^HCIFS protocol to see the wisdom of doing it this way.
Well, maybe. One might also look at said protocol to see, instead, the wisdom of avoiding its mistakes; I'm not sure I'd say putting ACL support into that protocol is one of them.
The protocol is even rudimentally described in /usr/include/rpcsvc/nfs_acl.x.
Well, that's the way Solaris 2.5-and-later handle them. Digital UNIX has a different protocol, which I think is actually an "extended attributes" protocol.
-
guy＠netapp.com -
Michael Salmon -
sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com