Hi everyone,
Just configuring my first NAS with truenas, and I really need to use the veto file option (used for 5+ years of my old NAS and helped me a lot).
I don’t find any reference or official documentation about it.
How do I globally setup this veto files in truenas 25.10?
I couldn’t use the standard linux approach by modifying the smb.conf file: this file doesn’t exist in truenas.
I’ve to be honest: it’s a bit absurd that iX system is changing the standard linux approach on how and where use features and put configuration files…and at the same time doesn’t provide documentation that explains exactly HOW to do the same free software things on their system…
EDIT: Moreover I just mentioned that in the samba share, iXSystem decided to allow for auxiliary options though the GUI only for “legacy shares” and not for “default share!” the auxiliary option has been removed and there isn’t a bit of documentation explaining how to access this option!
Obligatory mention TrueNAS is not a standard Linux distribution. It’s intended as a storage appliance. To wit, the system configuration is stored in a SQLite3 DB in /data/freenas-v1.db. The middleware uses this DB to dynamically construct the relevant text configuration files throughout the file system. The web UI and API modify the tables in this DB to effect configuration changes. This architecture allows for atomic configuration backups and restores, and facilitates system recovery from boot media failure.
This architecture unfortunately also results in configuration inflexibility. Veto files aren’t included in the SMB service table schema. There is no global mechanism to enable veto files. The best that can be done is to create all your shares as legacy shares, and then use API calls to set the auxsmbconf parameter per share to enable veto files.
This is deliberately hidden to prevent fielded units in production from putting their shares in an indeterminate state.
Thanks a lot for the very detailed answer.
From my side is simply unacceptable that truenas doesn’t allow to use in any way a very basic feature like veto files.
iXSystems did:
- Changed the basic linux environment, paths and config files to making it proprietary
- Documentation is very limited and generic
- Veto files basic feature has been removed
- It doesn’t give any info how to use it and from what you says it has simply removed from the system.
The problem is not only one feature: is all the approach that is far away from something maintainable.
How can an “enterprise system vendor” silently remove feature, without providing any documentation?
If I was going to use truenas for my system in signature, maybe when updating from 25 to 26, I was going to lose other feature I took time to configure like smb multichannel or whatever?
No thanks, I’ve got rid of Truenas and going to install some other OSes.
Thanks a lot anyway Samuel for the kindness and detailed answer.
HS
Personally, I agree with the unavailability of veto files, as preventing share users from modifying files they would otherwise have full control over is less secure than not having the files in the share at all. A better approach may be DFS (i.e., External Share as the share purpose) where you only make available directories in the share you want to have available.
TrueNAS, as an enterprise system vendor, primarily supports their own storage hardware, but makes the storage software available to enthusiasts. Since they’re vertically integrated, they can add or remove features as fits their product strategy.
Again, TrueNAS is not a generic Linux distribution; it leverages Linux underneath its middleware layer since that’s what’s available in the market. You’re welcome to try another distribution that may suit your requirements better.
The point is not to agree or not about something. If you provide enterprise solution based on open source and free software, it’s the bare minimum to not remove feature changing continuously from one version to another.
I’ve also handled the IT part in the company where I work in the past, and thinking to not have at all veto files or having them relegated to some “legacy” share it’s simply unbelievable. (As well as other choice like smb multichannel implementation and others…)
Thanks anyway for your explanation, really. I already moved to something else.
