[Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue 12
Eric Anderson
anderson at centtech.com
Tue Dec 13 17:21:47 UTC 2005
gwood at dragonhold.org wrote:
>>>>SMB is stateful and not cluster
>>>>aware,
>>>>
>>>>
>>(please correct me here! I'm still learning)
>>
>>
>The point is that if the application itself is storing information, then
>the filesystem under it cannot (without app support) make up for this.
>
>Hence the comment about SMB being stateful. If the clients connections
>cannot cope (locking or just data transfer) cleanly with the server
>crashing/restarting, then it cannot be clustered in this way.
>
>Personally I didn't think this applied to samba, but I don't know the
>internals enough to comment.
>
>
Ahh - I see, what you are saying actually has nothing to do with unix
filesystems, but samba and clients. I believe from what I've seen, that
most clients will reconnect upon connection loss, and re-acquire locks
and such without issue. I'm not 100% certain on this, so take it for
what it's worth.
Eric
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Linux-cluster
mailing list