[DRBD-user] Alternatives to NFS ?

jeffb jeffb at umci.com
Fri Feb 17 18:46:12 CET 2006

Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.


'm using the standard samba and kernel that came installed with Ubuntu
5.10. When I searched around on the web to find out when this new
ability had come around, it looked like it's been there for quite a
while, I had just never noticed that groups/users etc had been happy.

I think I read that almost all 2.6 kernels had cifs unix extensions.

What I'm using:
kernel-2.6.12-9 (ubuntu)
samba-3.0.14a-6ubuntu1

The other great part.. There really wasn't any configuration to do... I
actually couldn't figure out how to turn it off if I wanted to.

You probably want to look into that data corruption issue that someone
was mentioning. I haven't really tested samba under an HA scenario. I'm
not sure how any file sharing system can prevent file corruption under a
drbd setup without seriously impacting performance. I've just always
assumed we mostly strive to prevent filesystem corruption (except for
the DB w/ transactions scenario).

-Jeff

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:27 -0500, Todd Denniston wrote:
> jeffb wrote:
> > Well, Samba might not be as bad as you would think. I've used samba
for
> > years, and I got very used to some of it's older limitations, but
with
> > CIFS, and the unix extensions, I recently discovered that samba was
> > running very much like NFS does.  File ownership and permissions all
> > come across as they should (as long as the UID's and GID's on the
> > systems match), and tools like chmod work just as they do for local
> > drives.
> > 
> > I wouldn't be afraid of giving samba/cifs with the unix extensions a
> > serious try.
> > 
> > -Jeff
> > 
> 
> Is there a HOWTO (or subsection thereof) you can point us to for
setting up 
> these "unix extensions"?
> And what version of Samba are you using to accomplish the use of them?
> 
> Thanks.
> 





More information about the drbd-user mailing list