On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Sam Lang wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Kai Blin wrote:
>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On 2013-03-28 09:16, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 27
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Sam Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Kai Blin wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 2013-03-28 09:16, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:36PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> >>> On 03/27
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Sam Lang wrote:
> Just to let folks know, we have a ceph vfs driver for samba that we
> are testing out now. We're planning to resolve a few of the bugs that
> we're seeing presently with smbtorture, and send a pull request to the
> samba repo. If anyone
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Sam Lang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Kai Blin wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 2013-03-28 09:16, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:36PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> >>> On 03/27
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Kai Blin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-03-28 09:16, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:36PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>>> On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
Hi list, I'm trying to create a
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:05:56AM -0700, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> > Still trying with no success:
> >
> > Sage and Ronnie:
> > I've tried the ping_pong tool, even with "locking=no" in my smb.conf
> > (no differences)
> >
> > # ping_pong /mnt/
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> Still trying with no success:
>
> Sage and Ronnie:
> I've tried the ping_pong tool, even with "locking=no" in my smb.conf
> (no differences)
>
> # ping_pong /mnt/ceph/samba-cluster/test 3
> I have about 180 locks/second
That is very slow.
>
Still trying with no success:
Sage and Ronnie:
I've tried the ping_pong tool, even with "locking=no" in my smb.conf
(no differences)
# ping_pong /mnt/ceph/samba-cluster/test 3
I have about 180 locks/second
If I start the same command from the other node, the tools stops
completely. 0 locks/second
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 07:41:55AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> > > Hi list,
> > > I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
> > > I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time
The ctdb package comes with a tool "ping pong" that is used to test
and exercise fcntl() locking.
I think a good test is using this tool and then randomly powercycling
nodes in your fs cluster
making sure that
1, fcntl() locking is still coherent and correct
2, always recover within 20 seconds for
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>> Disable the recovery lock file from ctdb completely.
>> And disable fcntl locking from samba.
>>
>> To be blunt, unless your cluster filesystem is called GPFS,
>> locking is probably completely broke
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> Disable the recovery lock file from ctdb completely.
> And disable fcntl locking from samba.
>
> To be blunt, unless your cluster filesystem is called GPFS,
> locking is probably completely broken and should be avoided.
Ha!
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at
Disable the recovery lock file from ctdb completely.
And disable fcntl locking from samba.
To be blunt, unless your cluster filesystem is called GPFS,
locking is probably completely broken and should be avoided.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> Thanks for the answer,
>
>
Thanks for the answer,
I haven't yet looked at the samba.git clone, sorry. I will.
Just a quick report on my test environment:
* cephfs mounted with kernel driver re-exported from 2 samba nodes
* If "node B" goes down, everything works like a charm: "node A" does
ip takeover and bring up the "nod
On 03/28/2013 07:41 AM, Sage Weil wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Matthieu Patou wrote:
On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
Hi list,
I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time.
If I'm not wrong Ceph (even CephFS)
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> > Hi list,
> > I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
> > I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time.
>
> If I'm not wrong Ceph (even CephFS) do not support exporting a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-03-28 09:16, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:36PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>> On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
>>> Hi list, I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on
>>> top of Cephfs I would as
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:43:36PM -0700, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
> >Hi list,
> >I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
> >I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time.
> If I'm not wrong Ceph (even CephFS) do not supp
On 03/27/2013 10:41 AM, Marco Aroldi wrote:
Hi list,
I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time.
If I'm not wrong Ceph (even CephFS) do not support exporting a block
device or mounting the same FS more than once wherea
Hi list,
I'm trying to create a active/active Samba cluster on top of Cephfs
I would ask if Ceph fully supports CTDB at this time.
I've found some (maybe outdated) documentation on the net in witch the
Ceph support is still marked with a question mark or with a "soon..." note
Thank you
--
Marco
20 matches
Mail list logo
