[Samba] locking and gfs

Ross S. W. Walker rwalker at medallion.com
Sun Feb 10 15:56:30 GMT 2008

Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:51:24AM +0100, Markus Neis wrote:
> > Ok I understand. People that earn more money than me made
> > this decision ;-) But I wonder why Redhat offers the
> > possibility in their cluster suite to setup samba services
> > on top of gfs. This should be a known problem then.
> > However, as I understand you its not a good idea to use
> > samba with gfs unless we would use ctdb?
> You can perfectly fine use samba on top of gfs, as long as
> you only share your data from a single node or (more
> precisely) make sure that every directory is only shared via
> a single node. Different directories can be shared via
> different nodes.

If samba+gfs is really only feasible for single node access then
why even use GFS? Why not just use ext3 and CLVM and have the
logical volumes fail-over from node-to-node? It definitely
would be a whole lot simpler to deploy.


This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

More information about the samba mailing list