[Samba] CTDB / Samba / GFS2 - Performance - with Picture Link

[Vogel, Sven]

Hi Volker,

you wrote that ist not so good to set locking = no, why ist hat so?

i thought 

ctdb (locking)--> dlm_controld (locking) or gfs_controld (locking)

so when i disable locking in samba i dont know how will this presented to the cluster file system? I thought the cluster file system will use the locks like this below.

Ctdb(locking=no) --> gfs2 (locking)

Sven

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Volker Lendecke [mailto:Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 12:15
An: Vogel, Sven
Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
Betreff: Re: [Samba] CTDB / Samba / GFS2 - Performance - with Picture Link

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:11:16AM +0000, Vogel, Sven wrote:
> Hi Volker,
> 
> so i looked fort he brlock.tdb file and its local on each node. I 
> added "posix locking = no" and "locking = no". I think it will run now 
> better. I again a strace file to the server. What do you think?

I would not run with locking=no. It will certainly be faster, but it might cause data corruption.

> http://dev.kupper-computer.com/intern/smbd_no_locking.txt
> 
> I also added
> 
> fileid:algorithm = fsname
> vfs objects = fileid
> 
> for gfs2 whats better fsid or fileid? 

Dunno, I never used GFS2, sorry. RedHat ships a cluster product with GFS2 and Samba, maybe they have a recommendation.

Volker

--
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