similar to: How to reach partially online state in ctdb cluster

drbd ctdb ocfs2 Hi Everything seems OK apart from the IP takeover. public_addresses 192.168.1.80/24 enp0s3 192.168.1.81/24 enp0s3 ctdb status Number of nodes:2 pnn:0 192.168.1.10 PARTIALLYONLINE pnn:1 192.168.1.11 PARTIALLYONLINE (THIS NODE) Generation:2090727463 Size:2 hash:0 lmaster:0 hash:1 lmaster:1 Recovery mode:NORMAL (0) Recovery master:1 but we are getting: 2014/07/11

Hi All, I am Running smbtorture raw tests on glusterfs samba share. I am seeing certain failures as follows: est: unlink time: 2014-11-19 15:21:03.886054 Trying non-existent file Trying a hidden file Trying a directory Trying a bad path Trying wildcards (../source4/torture/raw/unlink.c:143) Incorrect status NT_STATUS_OBJECT_NAME_INVALID - should be NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE time: 2014-11-19

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

This is long overdue CTDB release. There have been numerous code enhancements and bug fixes since the last release of CTDB. Highlights ======= * Support for readonly records (http://ctdb.samba.org/doc/readonlyrecords.txt) * Locking API to detect deadlocks between ctdb and samba * Fetch-lock optimization to rate-limit concurrent requests for same record * Support for policy routing * Modified IP

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

Release Announcements ===================== This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.9. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/. Samba 4.9 will be the next version of the Samba suite. UPGRADING ========= NEW FEATURES/CHANGES

Release Announcements ===================== This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.9. This is *not* intended for production environments and is designed for testing purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/. Samba 4.9 will be the next version of the Samba suite. UPGRADING ========= NEW FEATURES/CHANGES

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 <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, i want to use development database for my testing purpose. The problem is with, when test cases are run, it deletes the data before and after the test. but i dont want the data to be deleted. how to do this. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group,

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, 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

Can anyone help with some pointers to debug a problem with Samba and CTDB with smbstatus traversing the connections tdb? I've got a new two node cluster with Samba and CTDB on AIX. If I run smbstatus when the server has much user activity it hangs and the node it was run on gets banned. I see the following in the ctdb log: 2014/10/29 11:12:45.374580 [3932342]:

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 > >

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 >

Superb. I'll take a look. Thank you On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:46 AM Martin Schwenke <martin at meltin.net> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 09:31:59 -0400, Robert Buck <robert.buck at som.com> > wrote: > > > It seems as though, when I go from `clustering = no` to `clustering = > yes`, > > if I do a domain join, it will fail. However, if I do a

Folks, 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 project. Question, does the external command line tool get called when LMASTER and RECMASTER are false? Given a scenario where we have a set of processes that have it set to false, then others that have it set to true, does the locking tool

Hi Bob, [CC: Amitay, who is better at SeLinux] On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:33:10 -0500, Robert Buck via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > This turns out to be an SELinux issue. Does anyone know the proper commands > to restorecon or otherwise to set the SELinux policy for > persistent/volatile database files moved to a different directory? I'm not sure if you're asking