On Monday 16 April 2007 17:05:59 Christian Brandes wrote: > Hi Marc and Bob, > > >>> I would like to set up an active/active cluster of redundant NFSv4 > >>> servers with ACLs that have the same GFS file system exported at the > >>> same time. > >>> > >>> At the moment I have a two node cluster of test servers with a GFS > >>> exported over NFSv4, but I can not get or set ACLs with getfacl or > >>> setfacl, which is the same behavior I had with samba. > >>> > >>> Some weeks ago I tried two SAMBA servers on GFS, though it was said not > >>> to work in the Cluster FAQ. > >>> It seemed to work -- but no ACLs. > >> > >> 1. Are you mounting gfs on the nfs server with the "-o acl" option? > >> 2. Can you do setfacl and getfacl from the gfs host (i.e. not through > >> nfs)? 3. On what version of the cluster software and gfs are you seeing > >> this? > > Sorry for the late answers: > > 1. Yes, /gfs is mounted with "-o acl" but not the / filesystem and that > is the point. > I was not aware that it is not sufficient to mount the filesystem itself > "-o acl" but also the root fs. > But if you do it works with NFSv4 as well as with Samba. > Now that I found out I took my Samba setup from some weeks ago and setup > a Samba PDC and two BDCs that offer the same GFS at a time and I am very > happy that it works. Finally I configured an IP-Cluster-Resource that is > failed over and use that to mount SMB-shares e.g. home directories on > SMB clients. > > 2. Yes, I can now and I could before / was "-o acl", too. > > > Hi Christian, > > Yes but samba - without having "shared shares" in a multiple writer > > configuration - works since the beginning even with acl. You need the -o > > acl and everything should be fine. > > OK, but what is the problem with "shared shares"? My understanding of "shared shares" is as follows: If both, server A and B "export" share C on path D. Then if client Z accesses share C on server A and client Y accesses share C on server A and both write to the same file you'll run into problems with dataconsistency for the data in the file. That is because samba on server A and samba on server B don't have cache coherrency or some kind of locking. IMHO that is also a problem for NFS v3/4. > Do 2 instances of Samba on 1 server, serving the same shares cause > problems? Why do they do on GFS with different machines > E.g. I nerver had problems accessing a combined Samba/NFS share by SMB > an NFS at the same time. If you have 2 instances of samba on 1 server you might end up with the same problem as state above. The same for NFS?! Only a fully disabled cache and synchronous writing might change things or even make concurrent access more stable. Regards Marc. > > I am still going to try out different scenarios. > > Thanks and best regards > Christian -- Gruss / Regards, Marc Grimme Phone: +49-89 452 3538-14 http://www.atix.de/ http://www.open-sharedroot.org/ ** ATIX - Ges. fuer Informationstechnologie und Consulting mbH Einsteinstr. 10 - 85716 Unterschleissheim - Germany Registergericht: Amtsgericht München Registernummer: HRB 131682 USt.-Id.: DE209485962 Geschäftsführung: Marc Grimme, Mark Hlawatschek, Thomas Merz -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
