I don't do this, but I know tekkbebe Suggest this. This could be helpfull if you want to have different permissions in each service. (This does not affect filesystem permissions, those would be the same irrelevant if you use two shared folders or one.) -> I would'nt go through that hassle myself.
In my case, regardless of the service or the OS used to access the shared folders, the users should have the same permissions. If I follow this logic, I will set multiple services on my different shared folders.
There is one thing I would like to clarify, the filesystem permissions vs the OMV users' permissions. When I click on "Privileges" option of a shared folder under "Access Rights Management" and change it, it only affects the users when they try to access it on the network, but not locally? I mean, if I were to log on directly on the machine with one of the users, I'd have different permissions over the files? Can you point to something I can read to better understand this concept? To add to what I just said, the only time where I can set the filesystem permissions on the WebGUI is when I create the shared folders? To what should I set them to make it secure? Leave them to default? It gives read/write permissions to all the users.
Oh, and don't use shared Folders inside Shared Folders...
I was planning to create a main shared folder named data and then fill it with other shared folders for easy access to all the files by a user who is part of the admins group. Why isn't it recommended?
Well you can't change it via GUI... so... correct. They are owned by root:users
Ahhhhh... So I have to set it up using privileges... but the folder will still be owned by root:users. By example, even if the shared folder media is owned by root:users on the filesystem, only the group admins will be able to read/write and the users that are not part of it will be considered like others with read access. All of that has to be set up using privileges and, if no privileges are set for a certain user, it will rely on the default filesystem permissions. It's like going through a funnel with the cone, representing the different set of rules (privileges and services), being on top of the pipe, representing the basic rules (filesystem permissions) in case none are set ahead. Is my analogy correct?
Thank's a lot!