[Gluster-users] Migration path from native Gluster-NFS towards NFS-Ganesha
Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
kkeithle at redhat.com
Mon Jan 16 13:08:01 UTC 2017
On 01/12/2017 04:36 PM, Giuseppe Ragusa wrote:
> Hi all,
> 1) Is it possible (and advisable, in production too) today (3.8.x) to configure a GlusterFS based cluster to use NFS-Ganesha (as NFS v3/v4 solution) and Samba (as CIFS solution) both controlled by CTDB as a highly available *and* load balanced (multiple IPs with DNS round-robin, not active/passive) storage solution? (note: I mean *without* using a full Pacemaker+Corosync stack)
It's probably doable.
The only reason it's not advisable — IMO — is that it's not what we're
doing, and getting help could be pretty hard.
The Samba team has all the CTDB experience. I've poked them — hopefully
they will respond.
Is there some reason you don't want to use Pacemaker and Corosync?
> 2) If the answer to the above question is "yes", is the above above mentioned solution capable of coexisting with oVirt in an hyperconverged setup (assuming replica 3 etc. etc.)?
Off hand I can't think of any reason why not.
> Many thanks in advance to anyone who can answer the above and/or point me to any relevant resources/docs.
https://github.com/linux-ha-storage/storhaug is basis for the Common HA
solution for NFS-Ganesha and Samba that GlusterFS-3.10 will be using.
N.B. It's also based on Pacemaker and Corosync.
More information about the Gluster-users