[cifs-discuss] Solaris CIFS equivalent toSAMBA guest ok = yes

[Afshin Salek]

Here are the areas not supported for non-ZFS filesystems:

*Case insensitivity*
   As far as CIFS protocol is concerned clients should be able to handle
   case-sensitive filesystems but that's not the case practically. CIFS
   server does not simulate case insensitivity for c-s filesystems.

*DOS attributes:* readonly, archive, hidden, system

*Full ACL support*
   Windows ACLs provide more fine grained setting than traditional Unix
   permissions or POSIX ACLs. Mapping Unix permissions or POSIX ACLs to
   Windows ACLs is always possible but that's not the case in the other
   direction. Besides non-ZFS filesystems are not able to store SIDs
   (Windows equivalent of UID/GID) so if a SID cannot be mapped to a
   UID/GID then it cannot be stored on non-ZFS filesystems.

*NTFS streams*
   Streams are only supported on filesystems that support extended
   attributes e.g. ZFS and UFS

These are the main areas, if I remember anything else I'll post it.

Afshin

Tim Thomas wrote:
> Hi Afshin
>>> Is it intended to support Solaris CIFS with underlying file systems 
>>> other than ZFS when it goes into Solaris Next ?
>>>
>> Rob, Alan, and I have mentioned that we support non-ZFS filesystems even
>> now. Although we only claim full Windows compatibility with ZFS and that
>> is not going to change. Perhaps if you elaborate on what exactly you
>> have in mind by *support* we can provide a better answer.
> Imagine: Sun Sales team sells SAM-FS to a  customer and tell them they 
> can share it via CIFS to Windows using the Solaris CIFS server. To 
> support this we need to know what kind of issues they might face and in 
> what circumstances. I don't know enough about this topic to ask the 
> question in a more intelligent way..and neither will people selling or 
> buying this kind of solution...they just see "CIFS Server" and "Filesystem"
> 
> We either decide that we DO or DO NOT support file systems other than 
> ZFS being shared using our CIFS server, and if we DO support other 
> filesystems then it needs to be clear what that means...we cannot let 
> our customers find out what the boundaries of compatibility are. ..I 
> have seen this happen with deals involving SAMBA and it gets very messy.
> 
> Rgds
> 
> Tim
>