[Gluster-users] gluster mounted volumes not following group permissions

[Harshavardhana]

http://bugs.gluster.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2818 - a bug is applied, easily
reproducible through the steps mentioned in the bug .

Native FUSE works.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Whit Blauvelt
<whit.gluster at transpect.com>wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> You might well be right. But why would the nfs requirement be different
> from
> the shared-file-on-local-storage requirement here? The file's perms are
> 664.
> So every group member should be able to write to it - and can on local
> storage. But they can't on gluster-via-nfs. Both cases are users sharing
> files in a write context.
>
> In any case the docs at
> http://gluster.com/community/documentation/index.php/Gluster_3.1_NFS_Guide
> say nothing about setting gluster's nfs service for a umask. Doesn't posix
> call for consistent behavior here? 664 perms should allow group members to
> edit the file no matter how the file system is mounted, shouldn't they? A
> umask in my experience is for default perms on file creation. The file here
> already exists with other perms. It may well be the case that we don't want
> files to be group-editable by default, but we certainly do when the perms
> are set for that.
>
> Best,
> Whit
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:06:50PM -0700, Gally, Jerry wrote:
> > I am a gluster newbie, and we don't use nfs with it, but it seems (at
> > least to me) that if you have 2 users sharing files in a write context,
> > especially where resulting temp file namespace may clash, having their
> > umask group write permissions enabled would be a reasonable requirement.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>



-- 

*

Harsha

Gluster Inc

*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110419/71192997/attachment.html>