[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue 14



you can look at my post from Nov 15 of 2004 to see the effects I experienced running samba on top of GFS. whether or not the problems stem purely from locking I don't know (I played extensively with the locking options in my smb.conf, to no avail), but the crashes [and delays] I saw when I had multiple users access the same file/share made the system unusable in production. whenever I've pushed on this question people seem to fall into one of two camps: 1. never tried running samba on top of GFS with high load, but thinks it should work
2.  acknowledges there might be some underlying problems

if there is a 3rd camp out there of people who are running samba sharing on top of GFS I'd love to hear about it. My experience says it'll start up fine and probably work ok under light load (say, 5 users) or if users only ever access their own shares. but as soon as you have multiple users accessing a common samba share you start experiencing [unacceptable] delays and if something else is going on (say a webserver serving the same path) you'll probably get a crash.
-alan

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 linux-cluster-request redhat com wrote:

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:26:38 -0600
From: Eric Anderson <anderson centtech com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue
	12
To: linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
Message-ID: <439EE82E 2080106 centtech com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Marco Masotti wrote:

==========================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:42:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wood <chekov ucla edu>
To: linux-cluster redhat com
Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue
12
==========================




[...]



SMB is stateful and not cluster
aware,




I'm defintely missing something in my assumptions. By its very nature, shouldn't GFS be prescinding from its application, as in every other filesystem?

Also, pls allow the ingenuous question, what number of applications needs ever to be cluster aware, if not a very strict one? Also, intuitively as it may come, should a properly written applicative be independent of the operating filesystem properties? Thanks.



I agree here - GFS supposedly supports posix semantics, so the
application should not care about whether it is clustered or not, as
long as it using locking correctly on it's own.  At least, with other
clustered filesystems, this is the case. If GFS doesn't allow this, I
would say it isn't really a cluster aware filesystem, but more of a
distributed lock/cache coherent filesystem without fully clustered
semantics.. (please correct me here! I'm still learning)

Eric







[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]