[gpfsug-discuss] GPFS and both Samba and NFS

Orlando Richards orlando.richards at ed.ac.uk
Mon Dec 16 12:31:47 GMT 2013

On 16/12/13 11:30, Chair wrote:
> Allo
>    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
> such issues.
> Sven, if that is the case, perhaps you could crib the lines of code /
> show your methodology that supports your views / experience.

Presumably this all comes down to the locking setup? Relevant to this, 
I've got:

(from samba settings:)
vfs objects = shadow_copy2, fileid, gpfs, syncops
clustering = yes
gpfs:sharemodes = yes
syncops:onmeta = no
blocking locks = Yes
fake oplocks = No
kernel oplocks = Yes
locking = Yes
oplocks = Yes
level2 oplocks = Yes
oplock contention limit = 2
posix locking = Yes
strict locking = Auto

(gpfs settings:)
syncSambaMetadataOps yes

> Regards,
> Jez
> --
> UG Chair
> On 16/12/13 11:21, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 10:14 -0800, Sven Oehme wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>> 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
>> misinformation.
>> [SNIP]
>>> 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.
>> JAB.
> _______________________________________________
> 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