On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:01 PM Hendrik Friedel <hendrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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... If project C wants to use storage technology A and B together, then C is best off helping upstreams in order to make downstream integration easier. I don't think it's anything beyond that. Anyway, I use Btrfs and Samba together just fine. But I mount a particular subvolume to a mountpoint and then Samba shares that mountpoint. I do not have any subvolumes nested within the shared subvolume. That might explain why I'm not affected as Samba only sees one set of inodes, no duplicates, per mount. >From the same Btrfs volume, I do share other subvolumes, and therefore there's a repeat of inodes, but they're each in their own mountpoints+shares. So far I've seen no evidence of Samba confusion. But I also don't use quotas. -- Chris Murphy
