[Linux-cluster] Stateful Samba\CTDB Failover

[Justin Shafer]

Yep I agree. The failover itself is almost instant.. I too am running samba
ctdb in active/active with corosync/drbd/ocfs2.. though I haven't added ctdb
as a resource to corosync, I have just been starting it manually. Corosync
wants to know there the SMB private directory is and I was told by someone
at samba that ctdb can figure all that out for itself... so I am wondering
why its still needed in the resource... But I figure by the time I would use
it in production, all that stuff will be answered. =)

Like novell says that the smb_private_dir with sysconfig/ctdb should have it
in there, and the private directory should be on shared storage.. along with
your filesystem your serving out.

But I was told differently by someone at samba...  so maybe the
smb_private_dir is just old....  Eitherway when I failover my mapped drive
is still in tact.. If I was in an excel spreadsheet, I would be a happy guy.
But Im trying Dentrix... sigh. (they should be on sql by now anyways).

-Justin

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Jason Fitzpatrick
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:56 AM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Stateful Samba\CTDB Failover

Hi Justin.

My understanding of all this is that SMB2 was only introduced with
Vista
(http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/archive/2008/12/05/smb2-a-complete-redes
ign-of-the-main-remote-file-protocol-for-windows.aspx)
and as a result your client has to be using SMB1

I was looking into SMBv4 for RHEL and it looks like you are going to
have to pull from the testing tree, which is not something that I am
willing to do as this was planned for a production environment, hard
enough to sell Linux to a Windows audience without having to explain
why I am using an unstable version of SAMBA

Long story short, due to the use of DRBD to replicate across our
datacenters, and the fact that I am using CTDB to cluster the IP
addresses of the clustered resource I found that the failover between
nodes was faster than the Windows cluster (no need to fail over the
disk as it was active active - saving a couple of seconds) but no
statefull, so the cluster has been dropped down from being a high
visability system to a proof of concept, I will be revisiting the
statefull failover when SMB2 is available via Redhat repos

Jay

On 16 July 2010 07:02, Justin Shafer <justinshafer at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have read this on the mailing list..
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-cluster@redhat.com/msg08757.html
>
>
>
> Basically I want a program called Dentrix which only does SMB1 before
> migrating to SQL, I want it to have a stateful failover which right now
> doesn't seem possible with Samba. I read in that archive, that you guys
are
> waiting for SMB2 and Durable File Handles for stateful failover.
>
>
>
> Just one question. Microsoft can do this perfectly with failover server
> 2008, steel-eye, and xp as a client, and Dentrix doesn't make durable file
> requests.. But somehow the failover is perfect with Microsoft.
>
>
>
> With Samba, my mapped drive is always there during failover, no data loss,
> etc. But Dentrix will gripe and say "another file is open at a
workstation"
> and I have to close and open the program. If Microsoft can do failover
with
> Dentrix, Samba should be able to.. But of course saying it is easier then
> doing it, Im sure. It costs a lot to do it with MS.
>
>
>
> -Justin Shafer
>
>
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>



-- 

"The only difference between saints and sinners is that every saint
has a past while every sinner has a future. "
- Oscar Wilde

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster at redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster