This is basically correct. ctdb sends c-structs over the wire, so even another compiler doing different alignment could already break compatibility. There is not much use of ctdb outside Spectrum Scale, so the incentive for the Samba community to go through the pain of making releases backward compatible is quite marginal.
However it is not as bad as described. There is no need to shut down all CES nodes. If you use our install toolkit for upgrade (which I would recommend) it will shut down half of the CES nodes, update those, bring down the other half, bring up the updated ones, update and bring up the rest. So there is a downtime, but that is just a few minutes.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
![]()
| |
|
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Matthias Hartmann / Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
----- Original message -----
From: Jonathan Buzzard <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Filesystem access issues via CES NFS
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 13:30
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 10:14 +0000, Simon Thompson wrote:
> From our experience, you can generally upgrade the GPFS code node by
> node, but the SMB code has to be identical on all nodes. So that's
> basically a do it one day and cross your fingers it doesn't break
> moment... but it is disruptive as well as you have to stop SMB to do
> the upgrade. I think there is a long standing RFE open on this about
> non disruptive SMB upgrades...
>
My understanding is that the issue is the ctdb database suffers from
basically being a "memory dump", so a change in the code can effect the
database so all the nodes have to be the same. It's the same issue that
historically plagued Microsoft Office file formats.
Though of course you might get lucky and it just works. I have in the
past in the days of role your own because there was no such thing as
IBM provided Samba for GPFS done exactly that on several occasions.
There was not warnings not to at the time...
If you want to do testing before deployment a test cluster is the way
forward.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420
HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt.
University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG
_______________________________________________
gpfsug-discuss mailing list
gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
