Samba Clustering

[Fred Lacombe]

Hi team,

in your configuration, both nodes have the same netbios name and they  
share a virtual IP is it ? If so it may result into some weird  
behaviour (like duplicating for shares and much more weird if  
authentication is needed in PDC configuration).

You may need to hide samba ports to avoid this behaviour, that was  
done for samba/lvs configuration (see the howto indicated by J. Mack).  
But with such a way to hide, you need to detect unavailability through  
heartbeat and then have a rule to remove hiding rules. I think it my  
be easier and faster to start samba on the second node when detecting  
the first one has failed.

I hope it helps, and that I've well understood the problem.

Regards,

-- 
Fred Lacombe                                 22, rue Boyer Barret
Open Source Project Manager                         F-75014 Paris
Network Infrastructure and Security   Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 44 83 58
                                       Mob. : +33 (0)6 60 64 83 58


Quoting Todd <tfranklin47 at verizon.net>:

> Thanks for the quick feedback!    True....I do have dual NICs installed
> on each node....i checked the man pages for smbd and nmbd...but I
> didn't see the smbd switch to which you are referring.   If I use the
> proposed switch..will it hinder browsing on Windows client?
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Siim Põder" <windo at p6drad-teel.net>
> To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
> <lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Samba Clustering
>
>
>> Yo!
>>
>> Todd wrote:
>>> The only caveat has been that when both are online  (that is..in
>>> active/passive mode and under heartbeat control), you can see the
>>> passive cluster node printer shares alongside the active node's 13
>>> printer shares in the form of  printershare at nodename.   Each share is
>>> duplicated!  What were shooting for is transparency and I'm beginning
>>> to wonder if we're chasing after the wind.  I've seen a few claims of
>>> Samba clustering with Novell iPrint and Lifekeeper software vendors.
>>> (If anyone has experience with those products, please let me know.)
>>
>> This is more of a samba-specific issue. My first guess would be that
>> nmbd is listening on 0.0.0.0 interface and your server has more than one
>> interface to windows network configured - VIP interface and another one
>> (perhaps for administration). I think nmbd does so by default, even if
>> you have set smbd to listen on a specific interface - there is a
>> configuration option to disable this behaviour.
>>
>>> The available open source software may not be evolved enough to
>>> accomplish this kind of cluster implementation.    I would really
>>> appreciate an insightful answer on this as soon as conveniently
>>> possible.
>>
>> Or did I oversimplify the problem in some aspect?
>>
>> Siim Põder
>> _______________________________________________
>> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users