[Linux-cluster] Re: Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 20, Issue 12

Eric Anderson anderson at centtech.com
Tue Dec 13 17:21:47 UTC 2005

gwood at dragonhold.org wrote:

>>>>SMB is stateful and not cluster
>>(please correct me here! I'm still learning)
>The point is that if the application itself is storing information, then
>the filesystem under it cannot (without app support) make up for this.
>Hence the comment about SMB being stateful.  If the clients connections
>cannot cope (locking or just data transfer) cleanly with the server
>crashing/restarting, then it cannot be clustered in this way.
>Personally I didn't think this applied to samba, but I don't know the
>internals enough to comment.

Ahh - I see, what you are saying actually has nothing to do with unix 
filesystems, but samba and clients.  I believe from what I've seen, that 
most clients will reconnect upon connection loss, and re-acquire locks 
and such without issue.  I'm not 100% certain on this, so take it for 
what it's worth.


Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.

More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list