similar to: [Announce] CTDB release 2.0 is ready for download

hello everyone: I want to know if the lastest version of ctdb has the following mechanism: when a record in tdb was added or upadted, if there are two same record in different nodes.In other words, if ctdb need to backup a record on other node? if not, do we plan to add this mechanism? thank you ! ________________________________ sunyekuan at outlook.com

Hi list We recently upgraded our fileservers from Centos supplied 4.2.10 to Sernet 4.4.6, and then our DCs from 3.6.x to 4.4.6. It seems that since then we've had problems with locks not being obeyed on all nodes - they only seem to work when a second client opens a file on the same node as the first client. For example, when a user opens an Excel file I will see something like this

sun yekuan via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > OK, thank you! I have another question: > > what the current CTDB have done for transparent failover ? achieved fully or partially? > if CTDB has not achieved fully, what else we should do ? Fully transparent failover not only a ctdb task. Samba is involved too. We need persistent file handles with guarantees, a task

This is the latest stable release of CTDB. CTDB 2.5.5 can be used with Samba releases prior to Samba 4.2.x (i.e. Samba releases 3.6.x, 4.0.x and 4.1.x). Changes in CTDB 2.5.5 ===================== User-visible changes -------------------- * Dump stack traces for hung RPC processes (mountd, rquotad, statd) * Add vaccuming latency to database statistics * Add -X option to ctdb tool that uses

sun yekuan <sunyekuan at outlook.com> writes: > ok, thank you! > > Except witness, what else should CTDB do for supportting transparent > failover? ctdb needs to develop a database model to distribute persistent handle information across nodes. For larger clusters, this will probably also require to introduce failover groups, you don't want to broadcast persistent handle

Hi List, I set up a ctdb cluster a couple months back. Things seemed pretty solid for the first 2-3 weeks, but then I started getting reports of people not being able to access files, or some times directories. It has taken me a while to figure some stuff out, but it seems the common denominator to this happening is vacuuming timeouts for locking.tdb in the ctdb log, which might go on

This is the latest stable release of CTDB. CTDB 2.5.4 can be used with Samba releases 3.6.x, 4.0.x and 4.1.x. Changes in CTDB 2.5.4 ===================== User-visible changes -------------------- * New command "ctdb detach" to detach a database. * Support for TDB robust mutexes. To enable set TDBMutexEnabled=1. The setting is per node. * New manual page ctdb-statistics.7.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alex Crow via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi list > > We recently upgraded our fileservers from Centos supplied 4.2.10 to Sernet > 4.4.6, and then our DCs from 3.6.x to 4.4.6. > > It seems that since then we've had problems with locks not being obeyed on > all nodes - they only seem to work when a second client opens a

Hi, I am testing CTDB failover cases. For one of my test case I need to bring one of the nodes to partially online state . Looking for help with the configuration that needs to be done to reach to this state. Thanks, Surabhi NOTE: I am testing CTDB2.5 version

Hi! > Removing htons() from both calls seems to fix the issue for us. Is it > possible that the call to htons is just wrong and should be removed? [...] > Thanks for reporting the issue.  Yes, htons() in socket() call is wrong > and should be removed. > > Can you create a bug report on [3]bugzilla.samba.org against CTDB? Done. See

Hi! A recent kernel security update[1] caused some issues with our ctdb cluster; messages like: | We are still serving a public IP 'x.x.x.x' that we should not be serving. Removing it | common/system_common.c:89 failed to open raw socket (Invalid argument) | Could not find which interface the ip address is hosted on. can not release it and | common/system_linux.c:344 failed to

Running into problems configuring different locations for the volatile and other database directories. Can someone provide a quick sanity check on what I'm doing below? Thank you. Given [database] volatile database directory = /var/cache/dbdir/volatile persistent database directory = /var/cache/dbdir/persistent state database directory = /var/cache/dbdir/state And given, [root

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:17:27 -0700, Computerisms Corporation via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > This occurred again this morning, when the user reported the problem, I > found in the ctdb logs that vacuuming has been going on since last > night. The need to fix it was urgent (when isn't it?) so I didn't have > time to poke around for clues, but immediately

Hi Martin, Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply >> ctdbd[89]: Unable to get RECORD lock on database locking.tdb for 20 seconds >> /usr/local/samba/etc/ctdb/debug_locks.sh: 142: >> /usr/local/samba/etc/ctdb/debug_locks.sh: cannot create : Directory >> nonexistent >> sh: echo: I/O error >> sh: echo: I/O error > > That's weird. The only

Hi, last weekend I've updated samba and ctdb on my 2-node cluster. Samba is now on 3.5.6 (from 3.3.4), ctdb on 1.0.114 (from 1.0.84). Both installed from repo via yum and ctdb-packages. After restarting both nodes everything was fine, we could access files on the cluster. On monday I noticed that the nodes didn't had their initial adresses: Node 1: hostname dscln01, public IP

Hi all, We're running gpfs 3.5.0.12 (5 total nsds & quorum servers, 2 nsds running samba), sernet-samba 4.1.4-7, and ctdb 1.0.114.7-1 and trying to get transparent failover to work from a windows 8 client. We have ctdb failover working, i.e. if I run mmshutdown on one of the nodes the IPs failover in a few seconds after the GPFS mount is unmounted. For our transparent failover test, I

Hi Bob, On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 20:56:39 -0400, Robert Buck <robert.buck at som.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, you seem to do a lot of work on CTDB. Let me ask a question... Yes, I have done a lot of work on CTDB. A bit less lately... > Is there a way to segment CTDB/Samba to minimize chatter? Specifically, > what I have in mind... In recent years advances have been made in >

------------------原始邮件------------------ 发件人：朱尚忠10137461 收件人：samba@lists.samba.org <samba@lists.samba.org> 日 期 ：2018年02月26日 17:10 主 题 ：[ctdb] Unable to take recovery lock - contention When the ctdb is starting, the "Unable to take recovery lock - contention" log will be output all the time. Which cases will the "unable to take lock" errror be output? Thanks! The

Hi, This morning our CTDB managed cluster took a nosedive. We had member machines with hung smbd tasks which causes them to reboot, and the cluster did not come back up consistently. We eventually got it more or less stable with two nodes out of the 3, but we're still seeing worrying messages, eg we've just noticed: 2017/04/19 12:10:31.168891 [ 5417]: Vacuuming child process timed

Hi Bob, On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:09:34 +1100, Martin Schwenke via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 20:44:07 -0400, Robert Buck <robert.buck at som.com> > wrote: > > > We use a Golang-based lock tool that we wrote for CTDB. That tool interacts > > with our 3.4 etcd cluster, and follows the requirements specified in the > >