I like my machines to have access to the whole array on one mount point.

 

At the moment, at each start of the array I execute a script like this one:

echo "
[user]
        path = /mnt/user
        comment =
        browseable = yes
        # Public
        public = yes
        writeable = yes
" >> /etc/samba/smb-shares.conf
/usr/sbin/smbd restart

 

With this I can just mount \\<tower>\user and have the whole array accessible.

 

But I really would like this to be a native feature instead of me doing it manually every single time.

Why not just set up a user share and put all the files on the array under that single user share?

 

I agree that this would not work if you also want individual shares for different types of files but I got the impression that was probably not the case.

 

Because that would take away cache-only shares, for example.

Because that would take away cache-only shares, for example.

No it would not!

 

There would be nothing stopping you having one user share that covered all the disks and was set to not use the cache plus any number of user shares set to be cache-only. 

 

The issue would arise when you wanted multiple views of the same data at both the total system level, and at individual share level.  I suspect that would be enough of a special Use Case that there might be little demand for it.

You can create a custom samba.conf block in /boot/config/smb-extra.conf that is persistent with reboots.

 

        # hook for user-defined samba config
        include = /boot/config/smb-extra.conf

I'm for this as a built in. It would be nice when I want to mount a windows drive to just be able to mount the whole server.

I really don't see a need for this on a routine basis => it's easy enough to do for those who want it ... but it doesn't seem like a feature that many would use.    The simple line WeeboTech provided lets anyone who wants it set it up so it's always there.

 

Seems like a new way to induce the user share copy bug.

Seems like a new way to induce the user share copy bug.

 

Indeed => hadn't thought about that specific issue; but this could indeed make it much easier (and thus more likely) to encounter.  Yet another reason to NOT do it !!

 

I think the point is its pretty unusual not to have this and to date I dont think we ever really wrote down anywhere why we dont also have it.

 

TBH i still dont know.

I am wondering if this defeats the security mechanism which is used for user shares ?

 

Mounting on the parent and descending into the child folder wouldn't trigger the configured share security or does it ?

 

I am wondering if this defeats the security mechanism which is used for user shares ?

 

Mounting on the parent and descending into the child folder wouldn't trigger the configured share security or does it ?

 

I suspect it does not => if, however, the entire array was exported, I assume there'd be a security setting that applied to that export.  (or at least it would seem there should be)