On 01/12/2017 04:36 PM, Giuseppe Ragusa wrote: > Hi all, > > 1) Is it possible (and advisable, in production too) today (3.8.x) to > configure a GlusterFS based cluster to use NFS-Ganesha (as NFS v3/v4 > solution) and Samba (as CIFS solution) both controlled by CTDB as a highly > available *and* load balanced (multiple IPs with DNS round-robin, not > active/passive) storage solution? (note: I mean *without* using a full > Pacemaker+Corosync stack)
It's probably doable. The only reason it's not advisable — IMO — is that it's not what we're doing, and getting help could be pretty hard. The Samba team has all the CTDB experience. I've poked them — hopefully they will respond. Is there some reason you don't want to use Pacemaker and Corosync? > > 2) If the answer to the above question is "yes", is the above above mentioned > solution capable of coexisting with oVirt in an hyperconverged setup > (assuming replica 3 etc. etc.)? Off hand I can't think of any reason why not. > > Many thanks in advance to anyone who can answer the above and/or point me to > any relevant resources/docs. > https://github.com/linux-ha-storage/storhaug is basis for the Common HA solution for NFS-Ganesha and Samba that GlusterFS-3.10 will be using. N.B. It's also based on Pacemaker and Corosync. -- Kaleb _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
