[Samba] Question about DFS
jhchang76 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 17:08:54 UTC 2016
1. What is the ordering method of a DFS Share with multiple servers (e.g.
msdfs:serverB\\share,serverC\\share linkb ; Source:
With a Microsoft DFS i have 3 options regarding the target. (Targets in a
client's site are listed first in a referral. Nevertheless i can choose
between: Random order, Lowest cost, Exclude targets outside of the client's
site). Is it possible to achieve something similar with a samba DFS?
In my setup, the order method puts the first entry as default primary
target. Initially I thought this would be a either round-robin or random
distribution in hopes to somewhat balance the load between the listed
servers. Unfortunately this wasn't the case. It just put a massive load on
the first listed server and very minimal amount of traffic being sent to
others. Maybe there is a setting that I don't know of but I had to change
that to a single entry RRDNS method to distribute the load.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:14 AM, <tell at posteo.de> wrote:
> On 28.04.2016 11:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 28.04.2016 um 11:00 schrieb tell at posteo.de:
>>> i'm trying to figure out some specific things about Samba DFS.
>>> 1. What is the ordering method of a DFS Share with multiple servers
>>> (e.g. msdfs:serverB\\share,serverC\\share linkb ; Source:
>>> With a Microsoft DFS i have 3 options regarding the target. (Targets in
>>> a client's site are listed first in a referral. Nevertheless i can
>>> choose between: Random order, Lowest cost, Exclude targets outside of
>>> the client's site). Is it possible to achieve something similar with a
>>> samba DFS?
>>> 2. DFSR within samba is "not yet implemented." - is there any timetable
>>> for it?
>>> 3. Is there a way to provide the dfs "links" directly under the
>>> servername, without the namespace? (e.g. \\sambadfs\here)
>>> In Windows this is possible with a "Workaround", the solution for that
>>> is a dfs consolidation root.
>>> (Source: http://virot.eu/setting-up-a-dfs-consolidation-root/)
>>> Any help is welcome - thank you very much in advance
>> wouldn't it be better to setup a redundant cluster FS like ceph on the
>> backend storage and so have just a simple, large share from the
>> viewpoint of samba?
> Good idea - but no, not possible (Legacy problems...).
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
More information about the samba