[zfs-discuss] Solaris10 10/09 ZFS shared via CIFS?

[Rich Brown]

On 11/22/09 16:48, Tim Cook wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Trevor Pretty 
> <trevor_pretty at eagle.co.nz <mailto:trevor_pretty at eagle.co.nz>> wrote:
> 
>     Team
> 
>     I'm missing something?  First off I normally play around with
>     OpenSolaris & it's been a while since I played with Solaris 10.
> 
>     I'm doing all this via VirtualBox (Vista host) and I've set-up the
>     network (I believe) as I can ping, ssh and telnet from Vista into
>     the S10 virtual machine 192.168.56.101.
> 
>     I've set smbshare on. But there seems to be non the the CIFS
>     commands you get in OpenSolaris and when I point a file browser (or
>     whatever it's called in Windows) at \\192.168.56.101 I can't access it.
> 
>     I would also expect a file name in .zfs/share like it says in the
>     man pages, but there is non.
> 
>     What have I missed? RTFMs more than welcome :-)
> 
> 
>     Details.....
> 
>     bash-3.00# zfs get sharesmb sam_pool/backup
>     NAME             PROPERTY  VALUE     SOURCE
>     sam_pool/backup  sharesmb  on        local
> 
> 
>     bash-3.00# ls -al /sam_pool/backup/.zfs
>     total 3
>     dr-xr-xr-x   3 root     root           3 Aug 11 14:26 .
>     drwxr-xr-x   2 root     root           8 Aug 18 09:52 ..
>     dr-xr-xr-x   2 root     root           2 Aug 11 14:26 snapshot
> 
> 
>     bash-3.00# ifconfig -a
>     lo0: flags=2001000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4,VIRTUAL>
>     mtu 8232 index 1
>           inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
>     e1000g0: flags=1004843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,DHCP,IPv4> mtu
>     1500 index 2
>           inet 192.168.56.101 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.56.255
>           ether 8:0:27:84:cb:f5
> 
> 
>     bash-3.00# cat /etc/release
>                          Solaris 10 10/09 s10x_u8wos_08a X86
>              Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
>                           Use is subject to license terms.
>                              Assembled 16 September 2009
> 
> 
> I thought I had heard forever ago that the native cifs implementation 
> wouldn't ever be put back to solaris10 due to the fact it makes 
> significant changes to the kernel.  Maybe I'm crazy though.
> 
...
> 
> -- 
> --Tim

Yes, support for a native CIFS server involved significant change to the
file system interfaces in the kernel (vfs/vnode layer).  Backporting these
changes would break unbundled file systems.

	Rich