Kon,
Since CIFS is not completely stateless, something needs to maintain state.
Ucarp doesn't do this which is why something like CTDB is more appropriate
for CIFS failover.
-Jacob
-----Original Message-----
From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org
[mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Kon Wilms
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:38 AM
To: gluster-users at gluster.org
Subject: [Gluster-users] 3.1.1 GFS + UCARP for simple CIFS HA?
A little information on my configuration for this task:
- I am deploying a gfs 3.1.1 cluster using 4 nodes in mirror mode.
- Each pair is running ucarp to provide failover support.
- The two ucarp ips are then made available to clients via dnsrr.
- My access mode is read-only for CIFS with no credentials for file
access.
- I am not looking to do an active/active configuration;
active/standby suits me fine.
- I am also not looking to retain state on failover. If a file access
fails, it will be retried by the client-side application.
- Clients are running Win2k8r2 and mount the cifs share to a local
volume for local server access.
Given this scenario, is ucarp suitable for deployment? Or are there
other potential unforeseen issues i.e. client-side drive disconnects
on failover?
My other option is to go to NFS on the Win2k8r2 servers. Which begs
the question of performance of CIFS vs. NFS.
Cheers
Kon
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users at gluster.org
http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users