similar to: CTDB RecLockLatencyMs vs RecoverInterval

Thank you, Martin. Yes, we happen to be using Samba and CTDB v4.10.7, on Ubuntu. *Would these happen to include the defect?* *In your opinion, will 4s be an issue?* We happen to be running this on top of a geo-distributed etcd cluster, and in this particular case there was about 4200 miles between the two data centers. We're running a distributed NFS file system over a total of three data

Hi Bob, On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:00:11 -0400, Robert Buck via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I have a question regarding CTDB RecLockLatencyMs tunable parameter. Is > there any relationship between the RecLockLatencyMs property and > the RecoverInterval property? Does one need to be larger than the other? Or > if RecLockLatencyMs were increased to 5000ms, should some

Could I impose upon someone to provide some guidance? Some hint? Thank you Is a shared file system actually required? If etcd is used to manage the global recovery lock, is there any need at that point for a shared file system? In other words, are there samba or CTDB files (state) that must be on a shared file system, or can each clustered host simply have these files locally? What must be

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, 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 > >

Very helpful. Thank you, Martin. I'd like to share the information below with you and solicit your fine feedback :-) I provide additional detail in case there is something else you feel strongly we should consider. We made some changes last night, let me share those with you. The error that is repeating itself and causing these failures is: Takeover run starting RELEASE_IP 10.200.1.230

hi everyone to experts, all experienced sambians - when one uses HA cluster one deems CTDB needless, redundant? Or you somehow team those two together? Or maybe ctdb is so superior that it is ruling this domain and if HA exists it leaves Samaba to ctdb? many thanks, L.

Hi Folks, We're in the process of setting up a Samba cluster (Samba+CTDB+etcd), and we (presently) using Winbind. We use AD. We're finding that the domain join (or kerberos ticket renewal) is unreliable. Every day we find Samba/Winbind is no longer joined to the domain. Now, we're in a bit of a learning curve here, and automating everything with Terraform + Ansible. We have yet to

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 following the ctdb logs: 2018/02/12 19:38:51.147959 ctdbd[5615]: CTDB starting on node 2018/02/12 19:38:51.528921 ctdbd[6602]: Starting CTDBD (Version 4.6.10) as PID: 6602 2018/02/12 19:38:51.529060

Release Announcements ===================== This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.6. 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 4.6 will be the next version of the Samba suite. UPGRADING ========= vfs_fruit option

Release Announcements ===================== This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.6. 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 4.6 will be the next version of the Samba suite. UPGRADING ========= vfs_fruit option

When I try to enable CTDB to manage (legacy) SMB and Winbind, I get startup errors. Sep 29 22:23:06 euw2-samba-server-c21-01 ctdb-eventd[1509]: *49.winbind: Failed to start winbind* Sep 29 22:23:06 euw2-samba-server-c21-01 ctdb-eventd[1509]: *startup event failed* Sep 29 22:23:06 euw2-samba-server-c21-01 ctdbd[1507]: *startup event failed* Sep 29 22:23:11 euw2-samba-server-c21-01 ctdbd[1507]:

My ctdb version is 4.17.7 Hello, everyone. My ctdb cluster configuration is correct and the cluster is healthy before operation. My cluster has three nodes, namely host-192-168-34-164, host-192-168-34-165, and host-192-168-34-166. And the node host-192-168-34-164 is the leader before operation. I conducted network oscillation testing on node host-192-168-34-164?I down the interface of private

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 2:52 AM Martin Schwenke <martin at meltin.net> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 06:55:31 -0400, Robert Buck <robert.buck at som.com> > wrote: > > > And so we've been rereading the doc on the public addresses file. So it > may > > be we have gravely misunderstood the *public_addresses* file, we never > read > >

Hi Max, On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 15:08:43 +0000, Max DiOrio <Max.DiOrio at ieeeglobalspec.com> wrote: > As soon as I made the configuration change and restarted CTDB, it crashes. > > Oct 2 11:05:14 hq-6pgluster01 systemd: Started CTDB. > Oct 2 11:05:21 hq-6pgluster01 systemd: ctdb.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE > Oct 2 11:05:21 hq-6pgluster01

------------------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 Max, On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 14:01:22 +0000, Max DiOrio <Max.DiOrio at ieeeglobalspec.com> wrote: > Looks like this is the actual error: > > 2019/10/04 09:51:29.174870 ctdbd[17244]: Recovery has started > 2019/10/04 09:51:29.174982 ctdbd[17244]: ../ctdb/server/ctdb_server.c:188 ctdb request 2147483554 of type 8 length 48 from node 1 to 0 > 2019/10/04 09:51:29.175021

====================================================== "Nothing you wear is more important than your smile." Connie Stevens ====================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 4.6. Please read the release notes carefully before upgrading. UPGRADING ========= ID Mapping ---------- We

====================================================== "Nothing you wear is more important than your smile." Connie Stevens ====================================================== Release Announcements ===================== This is the first stable release of Samba 4.6. Please read the release notes carefully before upgrading. UPGRADING ========= ID Mapping ---------- We

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