On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 13:16 +0200, Kai Dupke wrote:
On 08/18/2014 10:51 AM, steve wrote:
Thanks for the input. It's not performance we want. We're never going to get that. It's reliability. What do you mean by fail over? I think we already have that. If one node fails, there is always the other one already up. If you mean have only one node available at a time, what's the advantage of that? Also, how are we going to serve a windows domain without ctdb?
I assume you can handle a windows domain with Samba and don't need CTDB?
fail-over means to have samba either running on A xor B.
The advantage is noOCFS2, which means less communication overhead and less complex setup.
'Already the other is up' does not help really as CTDB does not provide a transparent fail-over for a client connection AFIK. The time the system needs to identify the issue and switch from node A to B isn't that long. Usually it isn't an issue if not happens multiple times a week.
I'm not sure what you mean by transparent fail-over. Do you mean that the IP is not taken over without user intervention? Or that smbd on the other node does not take over the share? Both, or something else? What do your SLES tests show? Thanks, L x
greetings Kai Dupke Senior Product Manager Server Product Line -- Phone: +49-(0)5102-9310828 Mail: kdupke@suse.com Mobile: +49-(0)173-5876766 WWW: www.suse.com
SUSE Linux Products GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany) GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nurnberg)
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ha+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ha+owner@opensuse.org