similar to: ceph is disabled even if explicitly asked to be enabled

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

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

31.07.2024 09:38, Anoop C S via samba wrote: > On Wed, 2024-07-31 at 08:36 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> The problem is that ceph is disabled by configure even if it is >> explicitly enabled by the command-line switch.? Configure should fail >> here instead of continuing, - *that* is the problem. > > This is/was always the situation because building

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:

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

Hello Using two file server with samba 4.12.6 running as a CTDB cluster and trying to share a specific path on a cephfs. After loading the config the ctdb log shows the following error: ctdb-eventd[248]: 50.samba: ERROR: samba directory "/plm" not available Here is my samba configuration: [global] clustering = Yes netbios name = FSCLUSTER realm = INT.EXAMPLE.COM registry

With the new signature file I was able to verify, but there was still a bad signature: "gpg: key 0x0FC3042E345AD05D: 1 bad signature" which I highlighted below. Didn't seem to be a problem, but thought I'd point it out. I'd be glad to do additional tests if you'd like. $ gpg --list-keys /home/wink/.gnupg/pubring.kbx ----------------------------- pub

In the smbstatus output, "Locked files" section, there's a list of locked files (effectively opened files, since windows always locks a file which it opens) and corresponding pid of smbd process. How to map this information to user ID? Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E 9D8B E14E 3F2A 9DD7 9199 28F1

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

07.06.2024 07:54, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> msdfs is broken in 4.19.? It worked fine in 4.18. This is not entirely true. >> Is no one using msdfs?? I wonder why I was the first to discover this? > > There must not be a test for your specific use-case. > > MSDFS is tested in the autobuild test suite. Can > you articulate the problem well enough we can > build a

Hi! I joined a newly installed samba (4.20.1) server to a domain, - just testing things. Now I want to remove this test server from a domain, but I can't: root at svdcm2:/# samba-tool domain leave -U tls\\mjt-adm WARNING: Using passwords on command line is insecure. Installing the setproctitle python module will hide these from shortly after program start. Password for [TLS\mjt-adm]:

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

Hello Jack, yes, I imagine I'll have to do some work on tuning the block size on cephfs. Thanks for the advise. I knew that using mdbox, messages are not removed but I though that was true in sdbox too. Thanks again. We'll soon do benchmarks of sdbox vs mdbox over cephfs with bluestore backend. We'll have to do some some work on how to simulate user traffic, for writes and readings.

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! In the samba wiki there's this page: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels which basically says that the maximum supported functional level is 2008_R2, and that 2012 (and 2012_R2) are included but not supported. This page mentions maximum samba version 4.4 and has been modified in 2017 (besides some formatting changes). What's the current situation? Also,

06.06.2024 19:33, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > For quite some time I'm trying to find what's going on with MSDFS referrals. > Samba version is 4.19.6. .. > However, when opening the directory in question from client, this name is not > shown in the listing.? Samba skips this name from the listing when looping over > readdir entries: So, the same config just works in

07.06.2024 09:39, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba wrote: > I run 2 DCs at a site, Debian 12.5, so far samba-4.19.6 from backports. > > Today I upgraded one of them, this brought samba-4.20.1 > > Now on this one DC stuff like "wbinfo -g" fails: > > # wbinfo -g > could not obtain winbind interface details: WBC_ERR_WINBIND_NOT_AVAILABLE > could not obtain

Hi! This is a heads-up for now, more debugging to follow. I had to downgrade samba from 4.20.1 to 4.19.6 because 4.20 broke case insensitive file access entirely. Only exact case filename works, no matter which value is set in "case sensitive" parameter. In 4.19, things works again. /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key:

07.06.2024 19:27, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 04:59:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> It boils down to having wide links = yes (and unix extensions = no). > > Wide links is problematic. I'd love to just remove it :-). I don't see anything problematic in wide links. I'd say it's samba who views it as problematic (just like in a