|
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
_______________________________________________
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
