support for multi-protocol, and qtree types
Synchronize directory attributes", which seems to do the trick, but what changes is it actually making to my data?
I have the following setup:
protocols: nfsv3-udp, nfsv3-tcp, cifs
managed volume: /rootvolume
inside of rootvolume:
1 share - storagedisk - stored on netapp file as unix style security
add a 2nd share
NFS path: /vol/prod_ghost/Ghost (Ghost is a subfolder of prod_ghost).
CIFS Share: ghost
share is exported on filer with everyone - full control, and NFS as root/rw writes to the ARX. The difference here is this volume is unix filesystem.
When I try to add the share I get:
MULTI_PROTO_NFS_ROOT_PERM: The NFS root user does not have access to a file with a very restrictive CIFS ACL on the multi-protocol share on 10.17.114.23 (via nfs export /vol/multi_prod_ghost/Ghost and cifs share ghost). Some filers have an option to ignore CIFS ACLs for the NFS root user. This option should be enabled, granting root full access to the shares contents.
If I add this to a test namespace, that is only NFS enabled, and has a NFS share, I get past the share add wizard and it, but the import fails with "Storage Import Failed, Error: Access denied by filer."
I suspect this might have to do with the conflicting permissions.
I then tried changing the permissions from NTFS to unix, removing the failed share from the test namespace and adding it back gave a "Error: Attributes of the share root are inconsistent."
I've seen this before, what exactly does this error mean? I know there's a tickbox that says "
To circle back to my original question - it appears to me that:
in a multi-protocol namespace, all volumes need to be exported as both protocols (i.e. you can't add in a share that is only exported via NFS or CIFS, it always has to be both.
all filesystem security/qtree types need to be the same (unless my errors above were caused by something else). Can anyone confirm that?
Is it possible to have 2 sets of managed volumes, one doing unix security type, and one doing ntfs security type under the same namespace (assuming all shares are shared out via NFS/cifs)?
Is it possible to still use hidden shares within an ARX namespace?