(ANSWER) Question About nfs3 vs. nfs4 Semantics On Sun 7310 Server

(ANSWER) Question About nfs3 vs. nfs4 Semantics On Sun 7310 Server

[Jon Forrest]

The other day I posted the description below of a problem
I was having when I was mounting from a Sun 7310
server using NFSv3 and NFSv4 from a CentOS 5.3
client.

It turned out that the solution was trivial - all
I needed to do was to use the "noacl" option
in my NFSv3 mount command. I still think that the
client shouldn't have complained about not
being able to preserve file protections since
it was actually to do so.

I'm still not sure if I should try NFSv4 but that's
another issue.

Cordially,

-- 
Jon Forrest
Research Computing Support
College of Chemistry
173 Tan Hall
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
94720-1460
510-643-1032

1    [nfs3]# touch x
2    [nfs3]# cp -p x y
3    cp: preserving permissions for `y': Operation not supported
4    cp: preserving ACL for `y': Operation not supported
5    [nfs3]# ls -l
6    total 1
7    -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov  3 14:46 x
8    -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov  3 14:46 y
9    [nfs3]# cd /tmp/x/home/jlforrest/nfs4
10   [nfs4]# touch x
11   [nfs4]# cp -p x y
12   [nfs4]# ls -l
13   total 1
14   -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov  3 14:48 x
15   -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov  3 14:48 y

Re: (ANSWER) Question About nfs3 vs. nfs4 Semantics On Sun 7310 Server

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:40:21PM -0800, Jon Forrest wrote:
> The other day I posted the description below of a problem
> I was having when I was mounting from a Sun 7310
> server using NFSv3 and NFSv4 from a CentOS 5.3
> client.
>
> It turned out that the solution was trivial - all
> I needed to do was to use the "noacl" option
> in my NFSv3 mount command. I still think that the
> client shouldn't have complained about not
> being able to preserve file protections since
> it was actually to do so.

I still don't understand quite what was happening: in the absence of
"noacl", does the client just always claim to support the posix acl
xattr's, but return an error when cp attempts to set them?

--b.

>
> I'm still not sure if I should try NFSv4 but that's
> another issue.
>
> Cordially,
>
> -- 
> Jon Forrest
> Research Computing Support
> College of Chemistry
> 173 Tan Hall
> University of California Berkeley
> Berkeley, CA
> 94720-1460
> 510-643-1032
>
> 1    [nfs3]# touch x
> 2    [nfs3]# cp -p x y
> 3    cp: preserving permissions for `y': Operation not supported
> 4    cp: preserving ACL for `y': Operation not supported
> 5    [nfs3]# ls -l
> 6    total 1
> 7    -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov  3 14:46 x
> 8    -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Nov  3 14:46 y
> 9    [nfs3]# cd /tmp/x/home/jlforrest/nfs4
> 10   [nfs4]# touch x
> 11   [nfs4]# cp -p x y
> 12   [nfs4]# ls -l
> 13   total 1
> 14   -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov  3 14:48 x
> 15   -rw-rw-r-- 1 nobody nobody 0 Nov  3 14:48 y
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: (ANSWER) Question About nfs3 vs. nfs4 Semantics On Sun 7310 Server

[Jon Forrest]

J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> I still don't understand quite what was happening: in the absence of
> "noacl", does the client just always claim to support the posix acl
> xattr's, but return an error when cp attempts to set them?

I didn't monitor the wire so I can only guess.
My guess is 'yes'. However, given that the client
also falsely that it couldn't preserve permissions
I'm not sure what's really going on.

-- 
Jon Forrest
Research Computing Support
College of Chemistry
173 Tan Hall
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
94720-1460
510-643-1032
jlforrest-TVLZxgkOlNX2fBVCVOL8/A@public.gmane.org