[Samba] CTDB / Samba / GFS2 - Performance - with Picture Link
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Thu Nov 29 23:58:24 MST 2012
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:16:34PM +0000, Vogel, Sven wrote:
> Hi Volker,
> you wrote that ist not so good to set locking = no, why ist hat so?
SMB semantics require mandatory locking. If a lock is set,
read/write on that region will fail. Applications do depend
on this. With locking=no you don't do that.
> 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)
The mapping to GFS is completely controlled by "posix
locking". ctdb has no business in that, it is only
responsible for Samba-internal databases.
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