[Samba] Do you NEED pacemaker when using Samba Clustering (ctdb)
zendal.darkman at gmail.com
Sun Nov 13 10:16:11 UTC 2022
Thank you for your quick comprehensive reply. CTDB does the job and it does
it well. I had a bad experience on another service several years ago when a
faulty node broke the HA so I have an interest in STONITH. However, this
was not samba and when a node has failed on the samba cluster CTDB handled
it as expected.
The ipfailover quote (which is echoed on other sites) comes from here
Again, thank you for your reply, it was appreciated.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 9:39 PM Martin Schwenke <martin at meltin.net> wrote:
> Hi John,
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 21:13:52 +0000, John Ericsson via samba
> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > I have used a two-node active-active samba cluster using cstb (using
> > clustered filesystem) and it has been working fine for over 3 years.
> > I set up a test environment and configured the samba using ctdb and
> > to turn on pacemaker. Thing is it all works fine even without pacemaker.
> > Thinking about it ... of course it does, it works as the samba team said
> > works. I should have asked this question 3 years ago. .
> > So what is pacemaker brining to the party when I read stuff like
> > "The current implementation of the CTDB Resource Agent configures CTDB to
> > only manage Samba. Everything else, including IP failover, should be
> > configured with Pacemaker."
> I think you have answered your own question. I am a current CTDB
> developer, but I don't know enough about the current state of Pacemaker
> to be able to say where it might do better than CTDB's IP failover.
> So, I guess it depends on the experience and motivations of whoever
> wrote that. They may have encountered situations where CTDB's IP
> failover didn't meet their requirements. If that's the case then it
> would have been nice to hear about it so we could improve CTDB. 😉️
> Note that we have been talking about a CTDB rewrite for quite a few
> years. The idea would be to split CTDB into neat, logical components,
> without throwing away existing functionality. The would be an
> improvement over CTDB's current monolithic design/implementation. If
> we achieve this then perhaps it will be possible to replace some
> components with 3rd party components like Pacemaker. This is somewhat
> possible at the moment (obviously, since someone recommends using
> Pacemaker instead of CTDB's IP failover) but there is no way of
> completely switching off CTDB's failover code, because doing that was
> never intended.
> > I appreciate that there is no STONITH options.
> Support could be added to CTDB...
> peace & happiness,
More information about the samba