View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Vieri l33t
Joined: 18 Dec 2005 Posts: 887
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: distributed file system |
|
|
I have several SAMBA shares that I would like to "distribute" over several Gentoo machines on the same LAN.
I'm only interested in fault-tolerance.
Suppose I have the directory /SAMBA/share1 on an ext3 filesystem on server1 and that smb.conf is configured to share /SAMBA/share1 as read/write.
I'd like to have server2, 3, 4. etc. to have the same share, content and read/write access.
Any SMB client (LAN user) should be able to access \\server1 or \\server2 or \\server3, etc. and be able to read AND write to "share1" (or any other share, if it's simpler).
Any changes made in \\server2\share1 should propagate to \\server1\share1, \\server3\share1, etc... Same thing for server1, server2, etc.
If one of the servers is down then the ideal situation is that its contents be updated by the other servers as soon as it gets back online. But that's not critical - I coudl initially do an rsync to update it and then resume it as a normal cloud node.
Can this be done ONLY with ext3 and Samba and some other tool (like a "union" rsync that suncs both ways?)?
Or do I need to setup a special filesystem such as http://www.xtreemfs.org/ ?
If so, any suggestions as to which system I could use (most tested, most supported, already-in-kernel)?
Thanks,
Vieri |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bones McCracker Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1611 Location: U.S.A.
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
You could rely on rsync, but unless very few changes are being made, you will have a high probability of losing changes people have made to files. You'll need something more than samba and rsync to get the redundancy you want.
There are other alternatives besides the file system you mention, if you do some research. _________________
patrix_neo wrote: | The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vieri l33t
Joined: 18 Dec 2005 Posts: 887
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I think that SAMBA has its own clustering solution if used with CTDB:
http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/CTDB_Setup
I just don't know how it is compared to filesystem-level clustering (ie. would one be better off using Samba+CTDB on ext3 or plain Samba but with its shares on a Lustre file system, or similar fs?).
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10590 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a thread where another poster is researching the same thing: Cluster filesystem for HPC. Might give you a head start.
- John _________________ I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bones McCracker Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 1611 Location: U.S.A.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vieri wrote: | Well, I think that SAMBA has its own clustering solution if used with CTDB:
http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/CTDB_Setup
I just don't know how it is compared to filesystem-level clustering (ie. would one be better off using Samba+CTDB on ext3 or plain Samba but with its shares on a Lustre file system, or similar fs?).
. |
I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for pointing it out, Vieri. If he really wants to stick to SMB for access, it seems that a Samba cluster would be the ideal solution. It does appear to still require a distributed filesystem upon which Samba is layered, though:
Quote: | 6 Filesystem specific configuration
6.1 IBMs GPFS filesystem
6.2 RedHat GFS filesystem
6.3 Lustre filesystem
6.4 GlusterFS filesystem
6.5 OCFS2 |
So there's your list of alternative filesystems to investigate. _________________
patrix_neo wrote: | The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|