[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS and both Samba and NFS
chair at gpfsug.org
Mon Dec 16 11:30:22 GMT 2013
Just jumping in here a minute:
> It is unworthy of an IBM employee to spread such inaccurate misinformation.
Whilst this may be inaccurate - I very, very, much doubt that IBM or
their employees have a secret master plan to spread misinformation (!)
In the spirit of this group, let's work together to technically look at
Sven, if that is the case, perhaps you could crib the lines of code /
show your methodology that supports your views / experience.
On 16/12/13 11:21, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 10:14 -0800, Sven Oehme wrote:
>> the only way to get something working (don't get confused with
>> officially Supported) is to recompile the CTDB src packages AND the
>> Samba src packages on a node that has GPFS already installed. also the
>> inclusion of CTDB into Samba will not address this, its just a more
>> convenient packaging.
>> Only if the build happens on such a node things like the vfs modules
>> for GPFS are build and included in the package.
> That is a factually inaccurate statement. There is nothing in CTDB that
> is GPFS specific. Trust me I have examined the code closely to determine
> if this is the case. So unless this has changed recently you are flat
> out wrong.
> Consequently there is no requirement whatsoever to rebuild CTDB to get
> the vfs_gpfs module. In addition there is also no requirement to
> actually have GPFS installed to build the vfs_gpfs module either. What
> you need to have is the GPFS GPL header files and nothing else. As it is
> a loadable VFS module linking takes place at load time not compile time.
> It is unworthy of an IBM employee to spread such inaccurate
>> said all this the binaries alone are only part of the Solution, after
>> you have the correct packages, you need to properly configuration the
>> system and setting all the right options (on GPFS as well as on CTDB
>> and smbd.conf), which unfortunate are very System configuration
>> specific, as otherwise you still can end up with data corruption if
>> not set right.
> Indeed. However I know not only what those options are, but also what
> they do despite IBM's refusal to tell us anything about them.
> I would also point out that there are sites that where running Samba on
> top of GPFS for many years before IBM began offering their
> SONAS/Storwize Unifed products.
More information about the gpfsug-discuss