Hi List, From what I've read in many mailing lists, Samba 3 is not truly clusterable. From what I understand, people have been able to cluster Samba with varying levels of success. Transparent failover and active-active file serving ( 2 or more smbs serving the same files (through a cluster filesystem like GFS) from multiple cluster nodes simultaneously ) are two things that are not possible with the current Samba. Or are there more issues as well? There were discussions however, that mentioned clustering being scoped into Samba 4. Can somebody elaborate on clustering support in Samba 4? Many thanks, --Abhi
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:14:44PM -0600, Abhijith Das wrote:> Hi List, > From what I've read in many mailing lists, Samba 3 is not truly > clusterable. > > From what I understand, people have been able to cluster Samba with > varying levels of success. Transparent failover and active-active file > serving ( 2 or more smbs serving the same files (through a cluster > filesystem like GFS) from multiple cluster nodes simultaneously ) are > two things that are not possible with the current Samba. Or are there > more issues as well? > > There were discussions however, that mentioned clustering being scoped > into Samba 4. Can somebody elaborate on clustering support in Samba 4?Samba3 has been made cluster aware by SGI via the work of James Peach (on the Samba Team). James has posted his changes and we're in the process of evaluating them for future integration. Volker is particularly active in this area at the moment. Jeremy.
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:14 -0600, Abhijith Das wrote:> Hi List, > From what I've read in many mailing lists, Samba 3 is not truly > clusterable. > > From what I understand, people have been able to cluster Samba with > varying levels of success. Transparent failover and active-active file > serving ( 2 or more smbs serving the same files (through a cluster > filesystem like GFS) from multiple cluster nodes simultaneously ) are > two things that are not possible with the current Samba. Or are there > more issues as well? > > There were discussions however, that mentioned clustering being scoped > into Samba 4. Can somebody elaborate on clustering support in Samba 4?So, when the relevant layers were constructed in Samba4, one of the design goals was to allow clustering, because this is a feature vendors of clustered filesystems have wanted, and because this kind of thing is harder to add later if the problem is ignored. The comments you may have read presumed (at the time) that retrofitting this to Samba3 would be particularly difficult. However, since that time, a large amount of work has been done on the Samba3 codebase to allow clustering in practise, and I expect to see further work in this area. (Samba4's cluster capabilities should be powerful, but only exist in theory, there is no clustered backend yet). I hope that clarifies things a bit. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20060320/71af81e6/attachment.bin
Hi, The first link appears to only allow for failover at the server side for samba. Heartbeat is OpenSourcethat does this for multiple platforms. While this is A Good Thing, the issue is one of state vis-?-vis the client's connection(s). The second link appears (or I missed something) to only discuss NFS. As can be read in the Samba documentation, SMB/CIFS state is what prevents truly seamless and transparent failover. While Heartbeat will function excellently to provide HA for multiple samba servers, in-progress client connections will be hosed, and there appears to be no easy way around this, as it is inherent in the protocol. HTH, -C> -----Original Message----- > From: samba-bounces+cbarry=silverstorm.com@lists.samba.org > [mailto:samba-bounces+cbarry=silverstorm.com@lists.samba.org] > On Behalf Of Arc C. > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:38 PM > To: samba@lists.samba.org > Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba 4 Clustering > > As far as I know, Sun Cluster 3.1 can natively cluster > (fail-over) Samba > 3.x > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-1081 > > Of course this is only available for Solaris (sparc or X86). > > Another this can be done with Veritas Cluster Server (Solaris > is for sure, but > I think Linux is also supported) with Application agent, as > described here > > http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/ClusterSer > ver_UNIX/275710. > pdf > > Is that what the question was? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: samba-bounces+achapkis=dls.net@lists.samba.org > > [mailto:samba-bounces+achapkis=dls.net@lists.samba.org] On > > Behalf Of Jeremy Allison > > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 5:23 PM > > To: Abhijith Das > > Cc: samba@lists.samba.org > > Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba 4 Clustering > > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:14:44PM -0600, Abhijith Das wrote: > > > Hi List, > > > From what I've read in many mailing lists, Samba 3 is not truly > > > clusterable. > > > > > > From what I understand, people have been able to cluster > Samba with > > > varying levels of success. Transparent failover and > > active-active file > > > serving ( 2 or more smbs serving the same files (through > a cluster > > > filesystem like GFS) from multiple cluster nodes > > simultaneously ) are > > > two things that are not possible with the current Samba. Or > > are there > > > more issues as well? > > > > > > There were discussions however, that mentioned clustering > > being scoped > > > into Samba 4. Can somebody elaborate on clustering support > > in Samba 4? > > > > Samba3 has been made cluster aware by SGI via the work of > > James Peach (on the Samba Team). James has posted his changes > > and we're in the process of evaluating them for future > > integration. Volker is particularly active in this area at > the moment. > > > > Jeremy. > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba >