3 ms·

I am tempted and have started to use ACLs. Once you've got a ZFS filesystem (in my case, on FreeBSD like the author), you have full NFSv4 ACL support. If you

by rleigh 11y ago

I am tempted and have started to use ACLs. Once you've got a ZFS filesystem (in my case, on FreeBSD like the author), you have full NFSv4 ACL support. If you export that over NFSv4, those ACLs are visible to all client systems. And if you export it over Samba, they are visible to Windows clients as well. I don't think the support here is too awful: given that it's what NFSv4 supports, it should be available to all clients. It doesn't help that the tools are crap on the Linux side--the POSIX.1e DRAFT ACLs are all they support last time I checked, and this dead non-standard should really just be replaced by the NFSv4 model at this point. Not sure what ZFSOnLinux does to work around this shortcoming.

mjn 11y ago
I believe the author's current setup is running ZFS on Illumos (specifically OmniOS), with volumes exported over NFSv3 and Samba. It's not mentioned in this post, but some of the older ones talk about it [1]. The comment about FreeBSD was worrying that if they started relying on ACLs now, and later switched their fileservers to NFS-on-ZFS-on-FreeBSD instead, they might end up with incompatibilities in the ACL models. [1] Here's one on the network filesystem setup: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/NFSFutureDesire https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/NFSFutureDesir...