[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS and both Samba and NFS
Orlando Richards
orlando.richards at ed.ac.uk
Fri Dec 13 15:15:03 GMT 2013
On 12/12/13 18:14, Lindsay Todd wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since this is my first note to the group, I'll introduce myself first.
> I am Lindsay Todd, a Systems Programmer at Rensselaer Polytechnic
> Institute's Center for Computational Innovations, where I run a 1.2PiB
> GPFS cluster serving a Blue Gene/Q and a variety of Opteron and Intel
> clients, run an IBM Watson, and serve as an adjunct faculty. I also do
> some freelance consulting, including GPFS, for several customers.
>
> One of my customers is needing to serve GPFS storage through both NFS
> and Samba; they have GPFS 3.5 running on RHEL5 (not RHEL6) servers. I
> did not set this up for them, but was called to help fix it. Currently
> they export NFS using cNFS; I think we have that straightened out
> server-side now. Also they run Samba on several of the servers; I'm
> sure the group will not be surprised to hear they experience file
> corruption and other strange problems.
>
> I've been pushing them to use Samba-CTDB, and it looks like it will
> happen. Except, I've never used this myself. So this raises a couple
> questions:
>
> 1) It looks like RHEL5 bundles in an old version of CTDB. Should that be
> used, or would we be better with a build from the Enterprise Samba site,
> or even a build from source?
>
Hi Lindsay,
We rebuild ctdb from the (git) source (in the 1.2.40 branch currently),
after running into performance problems with the sernet bundled version
(1.0.114). It's easy to build:
git clone git://git.samba.org/ctdb.git ctdb.git
cd ctdb.git
git branch -r
git checkout -b "my_build" origin/1.2.40
cd packaging/RPM/
./makerpms.sh
yum install /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ctdb*.rpm
I then take the Sernet src rpm and rebuild it, using ctdb.h from the
above rather than the 1.0.114 version they use. This is possibly not
required, but I thought it best to be sure that the differing headers
wouldn't cause any problems. I remain, as ever, very grateful to Sernet
for providing these!
> 2) Given that CTDB can also run NFS, what are people who need both
> finding works best: run both cNFS + Samba-CTDB, or let CTDB run both?
> It seems to me that if I let CTDB run both, I only need a single
> floating IP address for each server, while if I also use cNFS, I will
> want a floating address for both NFS and Samba, on each server.
>
We let CTDB run both, but we didn't come to that decision by comparing
the merits of both options. I think Bristol (Bob Cregan is cc'd, I'm not
sure he's on this list) run cNFS and CTDB side by side. As you say -
you'd at least require different IP addresses to do that.
> Thanks for the help!
Best of luck :)
>
> R. Lindsay Todd, PhD
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at gpfsug.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
>
--
--
Dr Orlando Richards
Information Services
IT Infrastructure Division
Unix Section
Tel: 0131 650 4994
skype: orlando.richards
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the gpfsug-discuss
mailing list