you can look at my post from Nov 15 of 2004 to see the effects I
experienced running samba on top of GFS. whether or not the problems stem
purely from locking I don't know (I played extensively with the locking
options in my smb.conf, to no avail), but the crashes [and delays] I saw
when I had multiple users access the same file/share made the system
unusable in production.
whenever I've pushed on this question people seem to fall into one of two
camps:
1. never tried running samba on top of GFS with high load, but thinks it
should work
2. acknowledges there might be some underlying problems
if there is a 3rd camp out there of people who are running samba sharing on
top of GFS I'd love to hear about it. My experience says it'll start up
fine and probably work ok under light load (say, 5 users) or if users only
ever access their own shares. but as soon as you have multiple users
accessing a common samba share you start experiencing [unacceptable] delays
and if something else is going on (say a webserver serving the same path)
you'll probably get a crash.
-alan
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 linux-cluster-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:26:38 -0600
From: Eric Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue
12
To: linux clustering <linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <439EE82E.2080106@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Marco Masotti wrote:
==========================
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:42:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Wood <chekov@xxxxxxxx>
To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue
12
==========================
[...]
SMB is stateful and not cluster
aware,
I'm defintely missing something in my assumptions. By its very nature,
shouldn't GFS be prescinding from its application, as in every other
filesystem?
Also, pls allow the ingenuous question, what number of applications
needs ever to be cluster aware, if not a very strict one? Also,
intuitively as it may come, should a properly written applicative be
independent of the operating filesystem properties? Thanks.
I agree here - GFS supposedly supports posix semantics, so the
application should not care about whether it is clustered or not, as
long as it using locking correctly on it's own. At least, with other
clustered filesystems, this is the case. If GFS doesn't allow this, I
would say it isn't really a cluster aware filesystem, but more of a
distributed lock/cache coherent filesystem without fully clustered
semantics.. (please correct me here! I'm still learning)
Eric
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
