From: Steve Finley Subject: Re: many-to-one nested CIFS serving Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:32:36 -0600 Message-ID: <50589414.8000305@colostate.edu> References: <50579A12.7070805@colostate.edu> <20120917165233.0e8d75a7@corrin.poochiereds.net> Reply-To: Steve.Finley-SOxAPD1SrF7V1CgomF1qdQ@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120917165233.0e8d75a7-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:45:54 -0600 > Steve Finley wrote: > > >> To Whom: >> >> I am exploiting a feature of the CIFS server that works for the client under >> Windows 8 (not sure about others), but does not work for the linux client >> under RedHat/CentOS5/6. >> >> I am mounting multiple Thecus NAS devices via CIFS, making >> symbolic links to files on those NAS devices, where I reorganize the >> directory structure, and then turn around and serve the top level >> of that directory via CIFS. >> >> On a Windows machine I only have to mount that top level directory, and >> the symbolic links automatically resolve themselves without having to also >> mount the NAS device(s). THIS IS VERY POWERFUL. On a linux >> machine however, the symbolic links can only be resolved if I have the >> NAS devices mounted, and the mount points have to be named as shown >> in the link. It seems that the protocol necessary for this to work under >> Windows has not been added to the linux version of the client. >> >> When I surf the web for others exploiting this feature, I find nothing. >> >> Thanks >> >> Steve Finley >> Research Associate >> CIRA - Colorado State University >> >> > > So you're reexporting a CIFS mount from a linux box with samba? Yuck. > > Most likely you're running afoul of the fact that when POSIX extensions > are enabled, that symlinks are passed on as-is to the client. If you > mount from the clients using "nounix" it'll probably do something > closer to what you expect. > > In truth though, I think you'd be better served by researching and > configuring a DFS share. > > Jeff, Thanks. The nounix option did what I wanted. Yes a bit "yucky" but this is all read-only, and the "expensive" part of creating links really reorganizes the data in a way that allows the scientists to browse it. I will have a good look at DFS, since we absolutely have a future need for such a beast. Steve