From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 4 00:51:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D061065673; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:51:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etnapierala@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937408FC0C; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicr5 with SMTP id r5so3476344wic.13 for ; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=7VNTIbgGefmas4gwDbs9Fs6dimr2a6cWdCN7QUpeu1w=; b=WNopC3TXwuumkWGQyf/6VkV3lYIHkeaJ/zCQwvRhx696Aec5kUOFj/dQlT/zv8dfdv lAfkgBxcbZ6x/5tLZi2yOCyyw5vGJdn13RDP8ygdfH4jpXFPW/8JUSAho+Gvie6HkNl2 q45rieqMr9N9LOz51Jmuh0Lpb9yLR3bskFyZhgOhchEMamn3sj8AtVGVJnaaLh4I0JEG 1D+TXDpno/C4B0O8XQMkEvyWgbPsGt1Cl5Q9JZewZzUPwO6ZiumLMpvKmpNHOzfjPMhi 95rmPT3RxbMI3GWhanHx0eZ1JT/2YXv6K3SYPDy5Mm9eVCE0znAWbg+kb0QZKSM4/uru 50Ow== Received: by 10.216.134.169 with SMTP id s41mr10696517wei.183.1346719896611; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (45.81.datacomsa.pl. [195.34.81.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el6sm21684401wib.8.2012.09.03.17.51.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=C5=82a?= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=B3a?= In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 02:51:33 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0BA0AE08-FF4D-422E-A00A-D8AA1146B66A@FreeBSD.org> References: To: Ivan Voras X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS and ACLs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 00:51:38 -0000 Wiadomo=B6=E6 napisana przez Ivan Voras w dniu 2 wrz 2012, o godz. = 23:25: > Hi, >=20 > Can someone give an estimated / expected answer on these questions: >=20 > * What is the performance impact (if any) for file systems mounted = with > either of the ACL options: acls, nfsv4acls, in the situation where = most > of the files do not have (and do not need) any ACLs? Performance impact for files that don't have an ACL should be = unmeasurable. ACLs are stored in extended attributes, and that has some impact, but we don't store ACLs unless it's actually required. > * Will the kernel automagically add ACLs (other than the regular Unix > DAC bits) to new files on file systems mounted with acls/nfsv4acls? No, unless there are some inheritable ACL entries on the containing directory. > * The "regular" DAC bits have some nice propagation rules, e.g. new > files created by a user belonging to a group which owns the directory > have the GID of this group. Does this work with ACLs? Yes. Mounting the filesystem with ACLs doesn't change anything at all in the behaviour, until you actually set some ACLs. > * Which is the easier option to use/maintain, POSIX or NFSv4 ACLs? Depends on what you need. Conceptually POSIX ACLs are simpler. --=20 If you cut off my head, what would I say? Me and my head, or me and my = body?