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

[Sabuj Pattanayek]

My testing consists of :

1) Use firefox on the client to download a 4.2GB DVD iso into the share
(write)
2) Copy an existing 4.2GB DVD iso from the share to the client's local
drive (read)
3) Copy an old c:\windows.old directory (left over after a windows 7 to
windows 8 upgrade) with lots of small files from the client to the share
(write)
4) Delete the windows.old directory on the share (delete on lots of small
files)

I let each of the tests above run for a few seconds and then I run "ctdb
disable" on the server which the client is connected to (IP verified with
netstat -n on the client). As mentioned I almost always get a copy re-try
window (or download failure in firefox) that pops up on the reads and
writes, except sometimes in test 3 where the "ctdb disable" somehow
coincides with the time between closing a file and opening the next file to
be copied so that the copy hangs until the ctdb ip failover occurs. Test 4
(delete) never throws a re-try dialog.

Thanks,
Sabuj



On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Sabuj Pattanayek <sabujp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > but with both reads
>
>>  > and writes a re-try window is thrown immediately or after the meter
>> hits 0
>> > bytes per second by the windows client when ctdb is disabled (using
>> "ctdb
>> > disable") on the server that the client is initially connected to.
>>
>> That should not happen. I assume that you use a new-enough
>> windows? (i.e. vista or newer)
>>
>> Maybe I need to re-test with the software versions that you
>> mentioned.
>>
>> Durable handle should be enough for I/O to survive a ctdb disable.
>> As said above: I might need to re-test with latest versions...  :-/
>> There might of course be a regression.
>>
>>
> The client is windows 8 enterprise with all the updates, the servers are
> rhel 6.4, gpfs 3.5.0.12, sernet samba 4.1.4-7, sernet ctdb 1.0.114.7-1 . I
> also have a windows 7 enterprise client I should test. Also, whats the
> difference between the sernet ctdb 1.0.1114.7-1 and what seems to be the
> "latest" ctdb v2.5.1 on ftp.samba.org other than a timestamp difference
> of a few months? Why is the sernet ctdb using the v1.0 line and not the
> v2.5.1 line ? I think I mentioned this earlier but the binary provided ctdb
> 2.5.1 rpm's from samba.org or a self compiled (rpmbuild -bb) version
> refuses to be installed with the sernet-samba 4.1.4-7 packages due to a
> requirement that it can only use ctdb 1.0.115 (a typo in the .spec deps I
> guess?). The only way I can install 2.5.1 is with make install, but again I
> have doubts about whether I should use it with sernet-samba which seems to
> not like anything other than ctdb 1.0.x .
>
> Thanks,
> Sabuj
>