From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8FCC04AAF for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 20:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C81217D7 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 20:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727605AbfEUUBB convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 16:01:01 -0400 Received: from smtprelay08.ispgateway.de ([134.119.228.98]:43446 "EHLO smtprelay08.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727222AbfEUUBB (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2019 16:01:01 -0400 Received: from [94.217.151.102] (helo=[192.168.177.20]) by smtprelay08.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1hTAwT-0002wh-FX; Tue, 21 May 2019 22:00:57 +0200 From: "Hendrik Friedel" To: "Rowland penny" , sambalist , "Btrfs BTRFS" , "Qu Wenruo" Subject: Re[2]: [Samba] Fw: Btrfs Samba and Quotas Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 20:00:55 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5bbcabdc-ac46-7481-64a8-b515745d72b4@samba.org> <8954cf73-77a1-f313-6ea1-d9bdb142dced@samba.org> Reply-To: "Hendrik Friedel" User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.34062.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Df-Sender: aGVuZHJpa0BmcmllZGVscy5uYW1l Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Hello, >> In my impression: Yes. Also, this problem seems to affect also zfs and > > I'm mostly interested in the claim that ZFS is affected. > I haven't followed this thread carefully, but what exactly is the problem we're > talking about, and how do we know it impacts ZFS? > [Something more than a single one-liner in that bug report?] Indeed, I only find that one line. I can try to find out. > Is the extent of the issue that quotas won't work, while enforced from Samba > against a ZFS volume? > > Can someone perhaps enlighten me? :) The explaination is: > That's because the concept of a btrfs "subvolume" completely > breaks the POSIX idioms that smbd depends on. And wouldn't that also be applicable to zfs? > At least I hope you can understand why some bug reports seem to take forever to get fixed, it is all down to priorities, the highest priority ones get fixed first, Yes, I understand that. > What I was trying to say was (and failing, it would seem), this is a two way street > and if OMV cannot/will not help you, then it is hard to fix, What is OMV specific here? Isn't the problem fully included already in linux (=kernel) and samba? > especially now that Jeremy has pointed out that it cannot be fixed as is. Now this > doesn't mean it can never be fixed, throw enough money and man hours at it > and a workaround can probably be found Here, I could imagine that linking with linux-btrfs would be worthwhile. > but this would undoubtedly entail OMV getting involved Why? OMV merely writes the smb.conf... Greetings, Hendrik