similar to: librmb: Mail storage on RADOS with Dovecot

On 22 Sep 2017, at 14.18, mj <lists at merit.unu.edu> wrote: > First, the Github link: > https://github.com/ceph-dovecot/dovecot-ceph-plugin > > I am not going to repeat everything which is on Github, put a short summary: > > - CephFS is used for storing Mailbox Indexes > - E-Mails are stored directly as RADOS objects > - It's a Dovecot plugin > > We

I'm sending this message to both dovecot and ceph-users ML so please don't mind if something seems too obvious for you. Hi, I have a question for both dovecot and ceph lists and below I'll explain what's going on. Regarding dbox format (https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox), when using sdbox, a new file is stored for each email message. When using mdbox, multiple

Hi everyone, I've posted some updated source and binary rpms following the release of updates by the samba project. Updated rpms include samba-4.10.6 and ldb-1.5.5. Here are the links: - http://nova.polymtl.ca/~coyote/dist/samba/samba-4.10.6/RHEL7 As usual, these work fine for me (4.10.6) but YMMV. Please do report issues if you find some. Regards, Vincent

Hi, some time back we had similar discussions when we, as an email provider, discussed to move away from traditional NAS/NFS storage to Ceph. The problem with POSIX file systems and dovecot is that e.g. with mdbox only around ~20% of the IO operations are READ/WRITE, the rest are metadata IOs. You will not change this with using CephFS since it will basically behave the same way as e.g. NFS. We

Hi Konstantin, On Wed, 10 Jul 2019, Konstantin Shalygin via samba wrote: > Vincent, excellent work! Thank you. Glad it's helping others. > Can you also provide support for rados vfs (already exists in SPEC) and > ctdb_mutex_ceph_rados_helper? That's probably doable but you'd have to BETA-test for me since I don't have a working ceph cluster at home. The information

31.07.2024 07:55, Anoop C S via samba wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Building current samba on debian bullseye with >> >> ?? ./configure --enable-cephfs >> >> results in the following output: >> >> Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h????????????? : yes >> Checking for

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > Hi! > > Building current samba on debian bullseye with > > ?? ./configure --enable-cephfs > > results in the following output: > > Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h????????????? : yes > Checking for library cephfs???????????????????????? : yes > Checking for ceph_statx in

Thanks Jack. That's good to know. It is definitely something to consider. In a distributed storage scenario we might build a dedicated pool for that and tune the pool as more capacity or performance is needed. Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jack <ceph at jack.fr.eu.org> wrote:

Hi! Building current samba on debian bullseye with ./configure --enable-cephfs results in the following output: Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h : yes Checking for library cephfs : yes Checking for ceph_statx in cephfs : ok Checking for ceph_openat in cephfs : not found Ceph support disabled due to

Hi, I'm testing out ceph_vms vs a cephfs mount with a cifs export. I currently have 3 active ceph mds servers to maximise throughput and when I have configured a cephfs mount with a cifs export, I'm getting a reasonable benchmark results. However, when I tried some benchmarking with the ceph_vms module, I only got a 3rd of the comparable write throughput. I'm just wondering if

Just found my issue. After I removed the cephfs mounts it worked! I will debug ceph. I assumed because I could touch files on mounted cephfs it was working. Now virsh list works! thanks jerry Lars Kellogg-Stedman > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:56:38PM -0400, Jerry Buburuz wrote: >> Recently both virsh stopped talking to the libvirtd. Both stopped within >> a >> few days of

Hi list, we have migrated a single node Samba server from Ubuntu Trusty to a 3-node CTDB Cluster on Debian Bullseye with Sernet packages. Storage is CephFS. We are running Samba in Standalone Mode with LDAP Backend. Samba Version: sernet-samba 99:4.18.2-2debian11 I don't know if it is relevant here's how we have mounted CephFS on the samba nodes: (fstab):/samba /srv/samba ceph

On Wed, 2024-07-31 at 08:36 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > 31.07.2024 07:55, Anoop C S via samba wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Building current samba on debian bullseye with > > > > > > ??? ./configure --enable-cephfs > > > > > > results in

Hello List, as anyone tried to install samba with/ontop on a ceph cluster? Regards, Dirk

As the subject suggests, I am wondering if its possible to verify if the currently defined libvirt secret provides valid authentication via Cephx to a Ceph cluster? I ask because ideally I would like to verify that the given cephx credentials in my libvirt secret are valid before I even attempt the virsh attach-device on the domain. I tried searching for a solution to this, but I can't seem

On 2016-01-08 at 09:31 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:26:24PM +0100, Dirk Laurenz wrote: > > Hello List, > > > > as anyone tried to install samba with/ontop on a ceph cluster? > > Try compiling and setting up with vfs_ceph. Correct, that's basically it. > Needs some more work, but should work. Some posix features are not quite there

Hi, I've recently been working on setting up a set of libvirt compute nodes that will be using a ceph rbd pool for storing vm disk image files. I've got a couple of issues I've run into. First, per the standard ceph documentation examples [1], the way to add a disk is to create a block in the VM definition XML that looks something like this: <disk type='network'

Hi, I came across the 'CTDB_CAPABILITY_LMASTER=no' and 'CTDB_CAPABILITY_RECMASTER=no' options in my quest to salvage a rather poorly performing CTDB cluster over Ceph(fs). Unfortunately, the docs provide not enough information for a clustering noop like myself. Would there be any benefit to disabling those options for a branch office node on a high-latency WAN connection?

Hi Konstantin, Thank you for the diff. I will review it and merge it today. About the missing directories, I think it may be doable to add them to the 'ctdb' rpm. As I'm not using ctdb, what should the ownership/permissions be for those directories? Regards, Vincent On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Konstantin Shalygin wrote: > On 7/10/19 9:49 PM, vincent at cojot.name wrote: > >

Hi, I'm trying to build an active/active virtualization cluster using a Ceph RBD as backing for each libvirt-managed LXC. I know live migration for LXC isn't yet possible, but I'd like to build my infrastructure as if it were. That is, I would like to be sure proper locking is in place for live migrations to someday take place. In other words, I'm building things as if I were