Subject: [netatalk-admins] Samba/Unix File Management vs. Resource Forks?

From: Clemens Anhuth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:29:23 +0200

hi.

imagine you store files "a" and "b", which both happen to have the
same filename, in the directories "x" and "y" via macintosh on a
netatalk volume.

now you copy file "a" from directory "x" over file "b" in directory
"y" via a windows machine using samba or via unix.

this way the forks of the file "a" from directory "x" do not get
copied over to directory "y".

is this correct so far?

if it is...what are the thoughts on using samba plus netatalk for
offering access to the same filebase?

scanning the mailing list archive i found one person suggesting not
to integrate both, but rather have them share different directories.

i am wondering why this issue - if it is one at all - is not well
covered in the faq, the docs (neither of samba nor netatalk as far
as i have seen) or the mailing list archive, as it is good for some
irritation because of sometimes broken files.

(i noticed the veto files stuff in samba, but it does not look like
it would really help in the above situation.)

---

From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:23:23 -0400

> offering access to the same filebase?

	Hmmm... I just tried it with a MS Word file, and there was no
corruption when the Mac or Windows box tried to open the copied file.
*shrug* We have 2- 9gig drives in a Linux host acting as our primary
file storage server (Netatalk+asun and Samba). We have never had a
REPORT of a problem like this. (That doesn't mean it can't happen).
Perhaps Netatalk rebuild fork information upon folder access? 

-- 

          - Matthew Keller -
       Lead Programmer/Analyst
  Distributed Computing and Telemedia
State University of New York at Potsdam

Web: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/

---

From: Vivek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:48:13 +0100 (GMT)

> Perhaps Netatalk rebuild fork information upon folder access? 

It can and does exactly this - when a Mac accesses a file that doesn't
have a resource fork on a netatalk share, netatalk constructs a minimal
resource file based on its extension mapping in... uhm... AppleVolumes.system? 
I can't remember the exact file, it's been a while since I've had to run
netatalk. This is fine for files with only a little metadata, but is
obviously going to break for files which store extra info in the resource
fork, as I understand some Mac things do.

-- 
You go insane if you go without sleep for too long.
And not in a good way, either.

---

From: Patrik Schindler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 19:24:34 +0200

>is this correct so far?

Yes.

>offering access to the same filebase?

I do neither exactly know what the "netatalk-support" for samba really does nor what to do against you described problem except to look manually to avoid it.

:wq! PoC