[asterisk-users] Voicemail and remote directory with SSHFS

[Matt Watson]

Not that I;m exactly a big fan of NFS but... why would you choose to
implement a filesystem that was designed to emulate Windows shares for your
UNIX-type environment?  You have to kind of expect odd problems like this
when you choose to use things for other than their intended purpose.  Samba
I would say is probably alot more focused on providing storage shares for
Windows desktop clients, not for UNIX-type clients.  Sure there is some
support to do what you want, but just keep in mind that similiar to using
sshfs like you were trying before, Samba, was really not designed to be used
by UNIX clients.  You've already found the most obvious reason... case
sensative filenames - which Windows does not support, and UNIX programs
expect filesystems on your UNIX machine *will* support it.

That seems kind of like me deciding to use ntfs on a local partition on
linux box instead of ext3/4, jfs, reiserfs, etc.

--
Matt

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Elliot Murdock <murdocke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Thanks...I set up a Samba mount, which works ok, except that Asterisk
> confuses a wave file as a wav49 file.  I think it may have something do with
> the way Samba supports case sensitivity.  Since Windows is not very
> aggressive when it comes to being case sensitive, I am thinking that Samba
> is saving files with the last three characters, wav, as uppercase, WAV.
>
> What is the procedure to ensure all the files are saved as is in Samba?
>
> Thanks,
> Elliot
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Tilghman Lesher <
> tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 14 May 2009 08:14:17 Elliot Murdock wrote:
>> > The problem is a file locking problem that Asterisk needs to make
>> changes
>> > to the directory.  I was initially shying away from NFS and Samba,
>> because
>> > I prefer to avoid any sort of security issues with only remotely
>> mounting
>> > one or two directories.  NFS and Samba are designed for larger
>> > applications, which makes those types of technology worthwhile.
>>
>> No, they're both designed as filesystems, which makes typical things like
>> locking possible.  SSH is designed as a communications medium, and someone
>> has hacked filesystem support on top of it (poorly, apparently).  SSHFS
>> was
>> never designed to be used in server production environments and should not
>> be used there.
>>
>> > I am wondering if there is any way to disable Asterisk's request to lock
>> > the directory.  I know this may cause some loss in data, but for the
>> volume
>> > voicemail receives, it should be rare enough that would make this
>> approach
>> > an option.
>>
>> There is not.  Use a real filesystem that supports file locking (or
>> really,
>> file linking, which is how the locking is implemented) procedures.
>>
>> --
>> Tilghman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090521/5594a016/attachment.htm