Also, Im not using the round-robin method for failover with DNS records, Im using the LVS method. Don't think that matters.... And I don't know if Corosync expects to use LVS or go off the public_addresses file as corosync is supposed to take your ctdb file and reconfigure it.. Like should I have corosync do the ip failover or CTDB. So I just have ctdb do it all, since that seems good. Maybe its time to go play with cman, but without that cool transparent failover, I feel like I have pretty much hit the end of the road. This is as cool as its going to get, for today. -J -----Original Message----- From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Fitzpatrick Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:56 AM To: linux clustering Subject: Re: Stateful Samba\CTDB Failover Hi Justin. My understanding of all this is that SMB2 was only introduced with Vista (http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/archive/2008/12/05/smb2-a-complete-redes ign-of-the-main-remote-file-protocol-for-windows.aspx) and as a result your client has to be using SMB1 I was looking into SMBv4 for RHEL and it looks like you are going to have to pull from the testing tree, which is not something that I am willing to do as this was planned for a production environment, hard enough to sell Linux to a Windows audience without having to explain why I am using an unstable version of SAMBA Long story short, due to the use of DRBD to replicate across our datacenters, and the fact that I am using CTDB to cluster the IP addresses of the clustered resource I found that the failover between nodes was faster than the Windows cluster (no need to fail over the disk as it was active active - saving a couple of seconds) but no statefull, so the cluster has been dropped down from being a high visability system to a proof of concept, I will be revisiting the statefull failover when SMB2 is available via Redhat repos Jay On 16 July 2010 07:02, Justin Shafer <justinshafer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have read this on the mailing list.. > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx/msg08757.html > > > > Basically I want a program called Dentrix which only does SMB1 before > migrating to SQL, I want it to have a stateful failover which right now > doesn't seem possible with Samba. I read in that archive, that you guys are > waiting for SMB2 and Durable File Handles for stateful failover. > > > > Just one question. Microsoft can do this perfectly with failover server > 2008, steel-eye, and xp as a client, and Dentrix doesn't make durable file > requests.. But somehow the failover is perfect with Microsoft. > > > > With Samba, my mapped drive is always there during failover, no data loss, > etc. But Dentrix will gripe and say "another file is open at a workstation" > and I have to close and open the program. If Microsoft can do failover with > Dentrix, Samba should be able to.. But of course saying it is easier then > doing it, Im sure. It costs a lot to do it with MS. > > > > -Justin Shafer > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- "The only difference between saints and sinners is that every saint has a past while every sinner has a future. " - Oscar Wilde -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
