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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Stateful Samba\CTDB Failover

Also, Im not using the round-robin method for failover with DNS records, Im
using the LVS method. Don't think that matters.... And I don't know if
Corosync expects to use LVS or go off the public_addresses file as corosync
is supposed to take your ctdb file and reconfigure it.. Like should I have
corosync do the ip failover or CTDB. So I just have ctdb do it all, since
that seems good. Maybe its time to go play with cman, but without that cool
transparent failover, I feel like I have pretty much hit the end of the
road. This is as cool as its going to get, for today.


-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces 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
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


On 16 July 2010 07:02, Justin Shafer <justinshafer 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
> 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
> and I have to close and open the program. If Microsoft can do failover
> 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 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 redhat com

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