sharing SubVolumes via the 'Main'Volume with SMB [FreeNAS r12825, Mac OS X 10.6.8]

[Fl337w00dM4c]

Hello all,

I am quite new to FreeNAS and so far I am quite thrilled with my NAS box (HP Proliant N40)

I am still tinkering with the settings and volumes.

One issue I had so far, was that changed user rights seem to be not propagated always recursively. In my case, I changed the ownership/rights for an 'upper' volume, but it did not propagate to all files of a volume mounted within the 'upper volume'. For the moment, I came to the conclusion, that nesting ZFS volumes within each other and sharing the top most volume is not the 'best' idea ;)

The issue I have currently, that such a construct collides with SMB or so.
I have a main volume for data ('media') and created sub-volumes within to have a fine grain quota control ('video','musik','foto') plus an extra volume with aggressive compression switched on ('dataCompressed'), i.e.

Code:

> mount
...
tankNAS/media on /mnt/tankNAS/media (zfs, NFS exported, local, nfsv4acls)
tankNAS/media/dataCompressed on /mnt/tankNAS/media/dataCompressed (zfs, local, nfsv4acls)
tankNAS/media/foto on /mnt/tankNAS/media/foto (zfs, local, nfsv4acls)
tankNAS/media/musik on /mnt/tankNAS/media/musik (zfs, local, nfsv4acls)
tankNAS/media/video on /mnt/tankNAS/media/video (zfs, local, nfsv4acls)
...

I am sharing now 'media' via SMB (for which I had to correct the permissions manually).

Now I tried to move a file, located at the trunk of 'media', into 'dataCompressed' via SMB with the 'media' as trunk mounted on Mac OS 10.6. However, the Mac OS X aborted the move with an error code -1303. If the error codes have not changed since v9 it reads "diffVolErr -- Files on different volumes".

So, my question is now: can I move files between different volumes (on the server) mounted within the same tree, whose root is exported as SMB mount...?

I hope I was not to verbose... ;)

Cheers and thanks for ideas,
Thomas

[FreeNAS 8.3.0 r12825, clients: Mac OS X 10.6.8, Fedora 17]

 

[cyberjock]

So, my question is now: can I move files between different volumes (on the server) mounted within the same tree, whose root is exported as SMB mount...?

WOW. That is 100% accurate question and took me only 3 times to read through it without getting confused.

I think the problem is that SMB fully expected the file to be on the same volume since it was on the same share. That's not really the case though since its on a different dataset. I think that's where your error is coming from. If my understanding is correct the answer to your question is "no". What you "could" do though is copy the file from /mnt/media and then paste it in /mnt/media/dataCompressed. This would create a brand new file and would be compressed. You would literally have to copy the file across the network so big files wouldn't be instantaneous and you'd have to delete the original file after.

Note: I'm not a Mac user but I don't think the error is limited to Mac so I think my answer is valid. Of course, if someone says otherwise then my explanation is probably useless.

I believe that when you change permissions the propogation stops at dataset boundaries because they are considered separate. I'm not sure what "media" you are thinking about copying to the compressed dataset but I will tell you that pictures, video, mp3s, etc generally don't compress more than -5% to +1%. Yes, some compression schemes can yield files bigger than not using compression. You didn't mention which compression scheme you use so you'd have to do a little Google-foo to find out if that is a problem.

 

[Fl337w00dM4c]

OK, I feared something like that. :-/

I guess, that other protocols (afp/nfs) have similar issues, r?

I use on dataCompressed grip max (i.e., 9), while I have the other volumes (all sort of media files) are uncompressed for the reasons you mention. For the moment, I am limiting my 'dataCompressed' for iso-Images and so forth

Many thanks,
Thomas

(about my question: yes, I probably tend sometimes to phrase a bit too excessively... ;) )

 

[cyberjock]

Honestly, I'm not sure about other protocols. My first guess would be yes but I've never tried it. If this is a big deal for you I'd definitely try those protocols. You have nothing to lose, right?