[PATCH] Add CTDB_REQ_TUNNEL for new protocol

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Oct 9 11:34:15 UTC 2017

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:29:04PM +1100, Amitay Isaacs via samba-technical wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de>
> > For me messaging, naming and id registration are just very tightly
> > coupled. In Samba we have the struct server_id (a PID on steroids) as
> > both a messaging target and existence check. I don't see the benefit
> > having two namespaces for those tasks. But it might really be that I
> > don't see the all requirements we have right now.
> >
> >
> There is no namespace separation. They are closely related. An endpoint is
> uniquely identified in cluster using server_id (or subset of it), srvid
> alone is
> not sufficient. Even though smbd only uses srvid for registration, ctdb
> converts that internally to information similar to struct server_id by
> querying pid using the socket.  SRVID alone is just for messaging.
> The only reason for introducing tunnels is to overcome the limitation
> in the srvid based registration.  If we resurrect server_id based
> registration with improvements, and both smbd & service daemons
> are using the same registration mechanism, then we stick to using
> srvid based messaging and sub-protocol definition.

This started out as my questions why the tunnel overlay is really
needed. I am of course not blocking it, I just wanted to understand
it. That failed, but I'm happy to not understand everything, so just
put it in :-)


SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de

More information about the samba-technical mailing list