similar to: Rolling upgrade from 3.6.3 to 3.10.5

Hi Diego, Just to clarify, so did you do an offline upgrade with an existing cluster (3.6.x => 3.10.x)? Thanks. On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Diego Remolina <dijuremo at gmail.com> wrote: > I was never able to go from 3.6.x to 3.7.x without downtime. Then > 3.7.x did not work well for me, so I stuck with 3.6.x until recently. > I went from 3.6.x to 3.10.x but downtime was

You cannot do a rolling upgrade from 3.6.x to 3.10.x You will need downtime. Even 3.6 to 3.7 was not possible... see some references to it below: https://marc.info/?l=gluster-users&m=145136214452772&w=2 https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/release-notes/3.7.1/ # gluster volume set <volname> server.allow-insecure on Edit /etc/glusterfs/glusterd.vol to contain this line: option

Yes, I did an offline upgrade. 1. Stop all clients using gluster servers. 2. Stop glusterfsd and glusterd on both servers. 3. Backed up /var/lib/gluster* in all servers just to be safe. 4. Upgraded all servers from 3.6.x to 3.10.x (I did not have quotas or anything that required special steps) 5. Started gluster daemons again and confirmed everything was fine prior to letting clients connect. 5.

Is there a way to tell the sshd to ignore the security check on the user's home permissions? debug3: secure_filename: checking '/ftpdata/pxdata/pold/data/.ssh' debug3: secure_filename: checking '/ftpdata/pxdata/pold/data' Authentication refused: bad ownership or modes for directory /ftpdata/pxdata/fold/data debug1: restore_uid debug2: userauth_pubkey: authenticated 0 pkalg

Hey All, Appears I solved this one and NFS mounts now work on all my clients. No issues since fixing it a few hours back. RESOLUTION Auditd is to blame for the trouble. Noticed this in the logs on 2 of the 3 NFS servers (nfs01, nfs02, nfs03): type=AVC msg=audit(1526965320.850:4094): avc: denied { write } for pid=8714 comm="ganesha.nfsd" name="nfs_0"

On 4/11/2018 11:54 AM, Alex K wrote: Hey Guy's, Returning to this topic, after disabling the the quorum: cluster.quorum-type: none cluster.server-quorum-type: none I've ran into a number of gluster errors (see below). I'm using gluster as the backend for my NFS storage. I have gluster running on two nodes, nfs01 and nfs02. It's mounted on /n on each host. The path /n is

Hi All, I'm not sure what's causing this but every time I copy a file from one of the Macs (details below) to the Samba server the file timestamp is changed to the copy time rather than retaining the last modified time. Does anyone know what could be causing this? Systems: Mac OSX (versions 10.3.x -> 10.4.x) Windows 2000 Professional Solaris 10 running Samba 3.0.11 Tests... Mac

On 2/21/2020 2:24 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 21/02/2020 19:06, torch via samba wrote: >> Am I missing something?? I don?t see where you are using the ?@? >> symbol anywhere. >> Mac is probably interpreting the parameters ?valid users? and ?write >> list" (correctly, I think ;-) as a LIST of 3 users: joe, at, mds.xyz >> or bob, at, mds.xyz.

Am I missing something? I don?t see where you are using the ?@? symbol anywhere. Mac is probably interpreting the parameters ?valid users? and ?write list" (correctly, I think ;-) as a LIST of 3 users: joe, at, mds.xyz or bob, at, mds.xyz. torch

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8885 Summary: Certain directory name results in a strange file being created Product: rsync Version: 3.0.8 Platform: x64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org

Hey Guy's, When the user is 'joe at mds.xyz' login works fine on Win 10. Same user types on a Mac OS gives [ Mac OS - Fails ] [2020/02/21 00:03:16.960566, 5, pid=12382, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0), class=auth] ../source3/auth/auth_util.c:126(make_user_info_map) Mapping user [mds.xyz]\[joe] from workstation [SERVER-PBM] [ Win 10 - Works ] [2020/02/20 23:58:01.059514,

On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 20:48 -0500, TomK wrote: > > > > > > "Sadly this really appears to be is a client issue. You see there the > > string Samba gets, so by the time Samba tries the process it the @ is > > already interpreted and the string split. > > > > Sorry! > > > > Andrew Bartlett" > > > > Yeah, wondering if

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:35 AM, TomK <tomkcpr at mdevsys.com> wrote: > On 4/9/2018 2:45 AM, Alex K wrote: > Hey Alex, > > With two nodes, the setup works but both sides go down when one node is > missing. Still I set the below two params to none and that solved my issue: > > cluster.quorum-type: none > cluster.server-quorum-type: none > > yes this disables

On 4/9/2018 2:45 AM, Alex K wrote: Hey Alex, With two nodes, the setup works but both sides go down when one node is missing. Still I set the below two params to none and that solved my issue: cluster.quorum-type: none cluster.server-quorum-type: none Thank you for that. Cheers, Tom > Hi, > > You need 3 nodes at least to have quorum enabled. In 2 node setup you > need to

On 23/02/2020 16:05, TomK wrote: > On 2/21/2020 9:18 PM, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: >> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 20:48 -0500, TomK wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> "Sadly this really appears to be is a client issue.? You see there the >>>> string Samba gets, so by the time Samba tries the process it the @ is >>>> already

Hey All, In a two node glusterfs setup, with one node down, can't use the second node to mount the volume. I understand this is expected behaviour? Anyway to allow the secondary node to function then replicate what changed to the first (primary) when it's back online? Or should I just go for a third node to allow for this? Also, how safe is it to set the following to none?

Hi, You need 3 nodes at least to have quorum enabled. In 2 node setup you need to disable quorum so as to be able to still use the volume when one of the nodes go down. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 09:02 TomK <tomkcpr at mdevsys.com> wrote: > Hey All, > > In a two node glusterfs setup, with one node down, can't use the second > node to mount the volume. I understand this is

On 2/23/2020 2:54 PM, TomK via samba wrote: > On 2/23/2020 11:44 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> On 23/02/2020 16:05, TomK wrote: >>> On 2/21/2020 9:18 PM, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 20:48 -0500, TomK wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sadly this really appears

Hi Folks, I am a relatively inexperienced Solaris system admin. We have Samba version 1.9.15p8 running on our server currently. I assume that it would be worthwhile for me to upgrade to 2.0. However, I only generally know about how to keep Samba running, and very little about installation since someone else installed it. Unfortunately, I can't seem

On 2/21/2020 6:10 PM, TomK via samba wrote: > On 2/21/2020 2:24 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> On 21/02/2020 19:06, torch via samba wrote: >>> Am I missing something?? I don?t see where you are using the ?@? >>> symbol anywhere. >>> Mac is probably interpreting the parameters ?valid users? and ?write >>> list" (correctly, I think ;-) as a