Topic
IC4NOTICE: developerWorks Community will be offline May 29-30, 2015 while we upgrade to the latest version of IBM Connections. For more information, read our upgrade FAQ.
1 reply Latest Post - ‏2011-03-30T19:00:51Z by gpfs@us.ibm.com
SchelePierre
SchelePierre
20 Posts
ACCEPTED ANSWER

Pinned topic GPFS 3.4.0.3 File ingest - ACL preservation

‏2011-03-30T06:04:38Z |
Hello,

I have some questions regarding the copying of existing files hosted on Linux (with extended attributes, Posix draft ACL) into a fresh GPFS filesystem.

Since "traditional" GPFS ACLs are "similar" to Posix ACLs:

1. If I create the GPFS filesystem with support for Posix ACLs ("-k all" or "-k posix"), can I do "rsync -A" and expect the original Posix ACLs to be correctly applied to the copied files on the GPFS filesystem? This may or may not be the same as asking whether using setfacl instead of mmputacl with a Posix ACL will work (as intended)? What if the GPFS filesystem was created with -k nfs4? Since Posix draft ACLs can be mapped onto NFSv4 ones, will this work (with an implied conversion or..)

2. What is the best practice for copying a large existing file base onto GPFS and preserve permissions and ACLs? Can I go ahead as in 1. using "cp -p" or rsync -A? Should I script the readout of ACLs on one side (getfacl), and script the application of the ACLs on the other side (mmputacl)? Should we completely rethink our ACL structure and apply it to the copied files?

3. Are there reasons for using NFSv4 ACLs over Traditional Poisx ACLs on GPFS if there are no Windows machines reading data from the filesystem, and we're not using NFSv4?

Thanks!
Pieter
Updated on 2011-03-30T19:00:51Z at 2011-03-30T19:00:51Z by gpfs@us.ibm.com
  • gpfs@us.ibm.com
    gpfs@us.ibm.com
    97 Posts
    ACCEPTED ANSWER

    Re: GPFS 3.4.0.3 File ingest - ACL preservation

    ‏2011-03-30T19:00:51Z  in response to SchelePierre
    "cp -p" or "rsync -A" will copy the posix acl from a Linux fs to GPFS (configured with "-k all" or "-k posix"). Do not configure your GPFS fs with "-k nfs4" in this case, because that would cause all posix acl store requests to be rejected. NFSv4 ACLs have more granular permissions and can be useful if that is important, but they are not fully supported within the Linux vfs so they don't sound appropriate for your situation here.