[Lustre-discuss] Anyone using ACLs?
craig.tierney at noaa.gov
Tue Mar 13 11:01:45 PDT 2012
On 3/13/12 11:54 AM, Tina Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Craig,
> assuming you're talking POSIX ACLs, they do, yes. We use ACLs (and
> default ACLs) a lot.
> One caveat being that we found that Lustre has a hard limit of 32 ACLs
> on a file - this is, we believe, something that ext3 used to have (but
> no longer has).
> But if you don't need to set more than 32 ACLs on anything, not a problem.
Thanks for the response and the details. I do not believe that we need
that many. We are faking directory based quotas in lustre through the
use of sticky bit (g+s) and then running scripts to change group ownership
to fix problems. We just need to be able to tag certain files with a single
group ("restricted data") to block access to those without that group.
This should require only one ACL be set for the restricted data group.
> On 13/03/12 17:33, Mario David wrote:
>> hi Craig
>> we still have lustre 1.8.6, but we (and several other sites) have been using acl's for a long time with no reported problem, i.e.
>> lustre is a backend FS for a thing called Storm (storage resource managers, a grid storage thing) exposed to external grid users
>> the way storm SW works it sets and modifies acl's according to whatever user or usage,
>> I didn't experiment or set "default" acl's, though I suppose they should also work OK
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Craig Tierney wrote:
>>> We have a need to use ACL's under lustre (server/client 1.8.7). I was
>>> wondering if anyone is actually using them and if they work as documented?
>>> Are there any known issues with ACLs?
>>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
More information about the lustre-discuss