From: Rob De Langhe (Rob.DeLanghe@telindus.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 2004 - 04:42:02 EDT
Hi,
I got some answers about the NFS-clients that would recover whenever the
NFS-server reboots, but my real concern (apology, I didn't describe this in my
original mail) is: what if the single-NFS server remains dead ? I could have
its files on a shared storage so that another server can takeover its function
as NFS-server, but that would render all file-locks (and file-handles?) on the
NFS-clients invalid, no ?
I search the whole weekend on the Internet, and found stuff like openGFS
(seems Linux-only) NFS-clustering (big $$ very likely) xFS (stable? working
installation?)
Still, Samba seems to recover the best (like when stopping/restarting the
Samba-server), but for the little knowledge I have about M$-protocols (and I
tend to keep it at that level...) this is just because of the limited features
in this protocol so that little or nothing needs to recover on the clients.
No?
Or should we just stick with a small disk-multipack and hook the two SunRay
servers to the same pack and use DiskSuite to give access to each other's
disks if one server crashes?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:21 AM
To: sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
Subject: transparant fileserver redundancy with Samba, not NFS ?
hi,
we have 2 desktop servers, that both get their /export/home from a central
NFS-fileserver.
The problem is that this single central NFS-fileserver is obviously a
single-point of failure, and worse: if ever it reboots, the NFS-filehandles
given to those desktop server will become invalid, so also the 2 desktop
servers would have to reboot (or at least kick all users off the machines to
free their home-dirs) to remount this /export/home. A while ago I heard about
a NFS-cluster solution from SUN, but clearly this was big bucks $$!
I noticed that on the other hand, the SMB-protocol doesn't have this statefull
behaviour of the NFS-filehandles. Call it a feature or a missing aspect, but
if a Samba-server restarts, the Samba-clients don't notice it apart from a
'short' delay in being serviced.
So my question is : would it be realistic to replace my NFS-fileserver by the
following:
- 2 servers attached to shared storage, of which one server is running
actively a Samba service listening on a secondary IP-address.
- if this primary Samba server reboot, the clients don't really notice
anything (apart from a delay in the file-service)
- if this primary Samba server dies entirely, the 2nd host can take over the
secondary IP-address and the Samba service. Again, the clients wouldn't
notice, no ?
Anyone has suggestions, toughts, whatever comments about this view ?
TIA
Rob
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 23:28:56 EDT