Hi Volker, you wrote that ist not so good to set locking = no, why ist hat so?
i thought ctdb (locking)--> dlm_controld (locking) or gfs_controld (locking) so when i disable locking in samba i dont know how will this presented to the cluster file system? I thought the cluster file system will use the locks like this below. Ctdb(locking=no) --> gfs2 (locking) Sven -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Volker Lendecke [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 12:15 An: Vogel, Sven Cc: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [Samba] CTDB / Samba / GFS2 - Performance - with Picture Link On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:11:16AM +0000, Vogel, Sven wrote: > Hi Volker, > > so i looked fort he brlock.tdb file and its local on each node. I > added "posix locking = no" and "locking = no". I think it will run now > better. I again a strace file to the server. What do you think? I would not run with locking=no. It will certainly be faster, but it might cause data corruption. > http://dev.kupper-computer.com/intern/smbd_no_locking.txt > > I also added > > fileid:algorithm = fsname > vfs objects = fileid > > for gfs2 whats better fsid or fileid? Dunno, I never used GFS2, sorry. RedHat ships a cluster product with GFS2 and Samba, maybe they have a recommendation. Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:[email protected] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
