[Samba] gpfs + sernet samba + ctdb + transparent failover confusion

[Sabuj Pattanayek]

After looking at this :

http://www.samba.org/~tridge/ctdb.pdf

It looks like this was working a long time ago with ctdb, winxp as a client
and without the need for protocol SMBv2 or even protocol v3.1 . So I'm
wondering if "disable that node" as mentioned in the pdf means "service
ctdb stop" or loss of network connection and not "mmshutdown" which yanks
the FS from underneath ctdb/samba? I'll give it a shot.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Sabuj Pattanayek <sabujp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We're running gpfs 3.5.0.12 (5 total nsds & quorum servers, 2 nsds running
> samba), sernet-samba 4.1.4-7, and ctdb 1.0.114.7-1 and trying to get
> transparent failover to work from a windows 8 client. We have ctdb failover
> working, i.e. if I run mmshutdown on one of the nodes the IPs failover in a
> few seconds after the GPFS mount is unmounted. For our transparent failover
> test, I open up firefox and start downloading a large file, e.g. a centos
> 6.5 iso into the mapped network drive being served up by one of the samba
> servers. Then I run an "mmshutdown" on the samba server the client is
> connected to and as soon as the mount disappears on the server the download
> stops and firefox throws an error. I was expecting that with transparent
> failover that the download would "hang" until the IPs had a chance to
> failover and the download/writes would continue but that didn't seem to
> happen.
>
> Any idea on how to get this to work? Do we need to use ctdb 2.5.1? What's
> the difference between the sernet-samba provided ctdb 1.0.114 and the ctdb
> 2.5.1 line ? I tried to install the samba.org provided ctdb 2.5.1 RPMs
> but it failed with :
>
> ctdb >= 1.0.115 conflicts with sernet-samba-4.1.4-7.el6.x86_64
>
> I also created rpm's using the spec file from the ctdb-2.5.1 sources and
> got the same error. Looks like using "make install" would be the only way
> to get this installed, but even then why is sernet-samba requireing the
> 1.0.x line? Again, does it even matter with the original issue with
> transparent failover?
>
> Thanks,
> Sabuj
>