Problem After Upgrade - NT_STATUS_FILE_IS_A_DIRECTORY
in [Samba]
|
Prev: [Samba] Problem After Upgrade - NT_STATUS_FILE_IS_A_DIRECTORY
Next: [Samba] samba entry in ldap
From: Leandro Tracchia on 7 Jul 2010 16:00 > Is this a *real* RAID controller or a 'fake' (BIOS/Software/MB) RAID > controller? If it is a real controller are you sure there is no Linux > driver for it? (Esp. since you are using Ubuntu!) If it is a > software/BIOS/MB RAID controller the performance is going to be really > bad -- these controllers are really only meant for home systems and not > really for true servers. > This is an Addonics controller card that uses Silicon Image 3124 chip. We have a RAID tower housing 12 hard drives. >> >> I'd have to setup mdadm on Ubuntu, which I've done >> before and was not impressed. The Windows RAID system >> we have is much more easier to maintain. > > Oh, you mean you have to actually use your keyboard? How dreadfull... > Not really. The GUI-based software for this controller card provides a lot of configuration options and documentation, something that is not so intuitive in mdadm. Its not just about using a dreadful keyboard, be real. > Do you mean to say that the files local to the Ubuntu *server* are not on > a RAID array? No. They are not as important and the data can be quickly restored from backups. > This sort of 'game' (mounting files from one 'server' on another server > and then re-exporting them), is not *specific* to Samba. See what > happens when you try to NFS export file systems mounted as nfs file > systems (although I expect nfsd/mountd would refuse to let you do that > in the first place). > > There are several problems: > > It tends to confuse the server(s). File serving software (Samba, NFSD, > etc.) really expect the data they are serving to be local (yes, using a > NAS or something like that is a little different) and are written to > optimal to work that way. > > It causes lots of network traffic: every I/O operation causes two > batches of network traffic and implies two sets of network channels: one > set between the machine with the physical disks (the XP box) and the > 'server' (the Ubuntu box), and a *second* set of network channels > between the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) and the final client(s) (the > client MS-Windows machine(s)). If this is on one physical network (if > the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) only has one NIC), then the you have lots > of network collisions, which means your network thoughput will truely > suck (eg network timeouts, dropped/lost packets, etc.). > > I expect that 'before' you 'got by' by luck. What might be happening > now is that some fix to Samba is biting you or maybe you are getting > network I/O errors (timeouts?) because of what I described in the > paragraph above. > > What you are doing is not really going to work in the long term. You > either need to: > > 1) Buy a real, supported RAID card for the Ubuntu system. > 2) Live with mdadm > 3) Pay for licenses for the XP system. I agree with this and will probably have to begin doing one of the above. I was just hoping someone would know an exact cause and fix for my situation without having to redo infrastructure. Thanks for your comments. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: John Drescher on 7 Jul 2010 18:00 On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Michael Wood <esiotrot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 July 2010 19:19, Leandro Tracchia > <itmanager(a)alexanderconsultants.net> wrote: > [...] >> The problem with simply moving the files over to the Ubuntu server is that >> the files on the XP box are stored on a RAID array that comes with a >> controller card whose driver is really only designed to be run on Windows, >> not Linux. > [...] > > By the way, there does seem to be a Linux driver for this card: > > https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Hardware,_driver_status#Silicon_Image_3124 > https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Sata_sil24 > I believe that is a fakeraid card so you may need a special kernel (zen sources) that has the dmraid 5 patch. John -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: Michael Wood on 7 Jul 2010 18:00 On 7 July 2010 19:19, Leandro Tracchia <itmanager(a)alexanderconsultants.net> wrote: [...] > The problem with simply moving the files over to the Ubuntu server is that > the files on the XP box are stored on a RAID array that comes with a > controller card whose driver is really only designed to be run on Windows, > not Linux. [...] By the way, there does seem to be a Linux driver for this card: https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Hardware,_driver_status#Silicon_Image_3124 https://ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Sata_sil24 -- Michael Wood <esiotrot(a)gmail.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: tms3 on 7 Jul 2010 20:00 > > SNIP >> >> >>> >>> This is truly a bad idea. That XP share should be >>> mounted by the workstations just like the server >>> shares. Move the data to the server, or use the XP box >>> as a server to directly serve those who need the data >>> on it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> TMS III >>> >> >> Why is this a bad idea? We've been running this setup >> for a few years now and its been working fine until we >> upgraded. The XP box only allows 10 user limit for >> shares, so that's why we mounted it to the Ubuntu >> server and shared it with Samba instead of having to >> pay for Windows Server license. >> >> The problem with simply moving the files over to the >> Ubuntu server is that the files on the XP box are >> stored on a RAID array that comes with a controller >> card whose driver is really only designed to be run on >> Windows, not Linux. > > Is this a *real* RAID controller or a 'fake' (BIOS/Software/MB) RAID > controller? If it is a real controller are you sure there is no Linux > driver for it? (Esp. since you are using Ubuntu!) If it is a > software/BIOS/MB RAID controller the performance is going to be really > bad -- these controllers are really only meant for home systems and > not > really for true servers. > >> >> >> I'd have to setup mdadm on Ubuntu, which I've done >> before and was not impressed. The Windows RAID system >> we have is much more easier to maintain. > > Oh, you mean you have to actually use your keyboard? How dreadfull... > > Do you mean to say that the files local to the Ubuntu *server* are not > on > a RAID array? > >> >> >> I don't want to get off topic here, I just want to >> know why Samba is giving me trouble browsing these >> mounted directories. > > This sort of 'game' (mounting files from one 'server' on another > server > and then re-exporting them), is not *specific* to Samba. See what > happens when you try to NFS export file systems mounted as nfs file > systems (although I expect nfsd/mountd would refuse to let you do that > in the first place). > > There are several problems: > > It tends to confuse the server(s). File serving software (Samba, > NFSD, > etc.) really expect the data they are serving to be local (yes, using > a > NAS or something like that is a little different) and are written to > optimal to work that way. > > It causes lots of network traffic: every I/O operation causes two > batches of network traffic and implies two sets of network channels: > one > set between the machine with the physical disks (the XP box) and the > 'server' (the Ubuntu box), and a *second* set of network channels > between the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) and the final client(s) (the > client MS-Windows machine(s)). If this is on one physical network (if > the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) only has one NIC), then the you have > lots > of network collisions, which means your network thoughput will truely > suck (eg network timeouts, dropped/lost packets, etc.). > > I expect that 'before' you 'got by' by luck. What might be happening > now is that some fix to Samba is biting you or maybe you are getting > network I/O errors (timeouts?) because of what I described in the > paragraph above. > > What you are doing is not really going to work in the long term. You > either need to: > > 1) Buy a real, supported RAID card for the Ubuntu system. > 2) Live with mdadm > 3) Pay for licenses for the XP system. Couldn't agree more. One more item is that the CIFS share to the XP box is the user that mounted the file system on Ubuntu. Bah! Just ugly all around. > > > > > -- > Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 > Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System > http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows > heller(a)deepsoft.com -- > http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: Gaiseric Vandal on 7 Jul 2010 22:50 You can't buy extra licenses for XP- you would need to install Windows Server instead. That doesn't really simplify things. A "fake raid" card under Windows XP is useful since XP does not directly provide disk mirroring. Otherwise- in my opinion- you might as well stick with software raid. If you are doing a clean install of linux the gui installer will help configure "md" mirrors. (the command line stuff is a little tricky the first time around.) The 3ware raid cards do provide true hardware raid and include browser-based management for Window and Linux. Not sure if there are even "3ware" controller drivers required or if it just shows up to the OS as a generic ATA controller. I think relatively new releases of Linux should include Silicon image drivers. I found out (the hard way) that even though some Intel raid drivers were included in RedHat Enterprise Linux 5 they were not included in Fedora Core 11. I realize this doesn't help with your immediate situation. -----Original Message----- From: samba-bounces(a)lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces(a)lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of tms3(a)tms3.com Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 7:50 PM To: Robert Heller Cc: samba(a)lists.samba.org; ltracchia(a)alexanderconsultants.net Subject: Re: [Samba] Problem After Upgrade - NT_STATUS_FILE_IS_A_DIRECTORY > > SNIP >> >> >>> >>> This is truly a bad idea. That XP share should be >>> mounted by the workstations just like the server >>> shares. Move the data to the server, or use the XP box >>> as a server to directly serve those who need the data >>> on it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> TMS III >>> >> >> Why is this a bad idea? We've been running this setup >> for a few years now and its been working fine until we >> upgraded. The XP box only allows 10 user limit for >> shares, so that's why we mounted it to the Ubuntu >> server and shared it with Samba instead of having to >> pay for Windows Server license. >> >> The problem with simply moving the files over to the >> Ubuntu server is that the files on the XP box are >> stored on a RAID array that comes with a controller >> card whose driver is really only designed to be run on >> Windows, not Linux. > > Is this a *real* RAID controller or a 'fake' (BIOS/Software/MB) RAID > controller? If it is a real controller are you sure there is no Linux > driver for it? (Esp. since you are using Ubuntu!) If it is a > software/BIOS/MB RAID controller the performance is going to be really > bad -- these controllers are really only meant for home systems and > not > really for true servers. > >> >> >> I'd have to setup mdadm on Ubuntu, which I've done >> before and was not impressed. The Windows RAID system >> we have is much more easier to maintain. > > Oh, you mean you have to actually use your keyboard? How dreadfull... > > Do you mean to say that the files local to the Ubuntu *server* are not > on > a RAID array? > >> >> >> I don't want to get off topic here, I just want to >> know why Samba is giving me trouble browsing these >> mounted directories. > > This sort of 'game' (mounting files from one 'server' on another > server > and then re-exporting them), is not *specific* to Samba. See what > happens when you try to NFS export file systems mounted as nfs file > systems (although I expect nfsd/mountd would refuse to let you do that > in the first place). > > There are several problems: > > It tends to confuse the server(s). File serving software (Samba, > NFSD, > etc.) really expect the data they are serving to be local (yes, using > a > NAS or something like that is a little different) and are written to > optimal to work that way. > > It causes lots of network traffic: every I/O operation causes two > batches of network traffic and implies two sets of network channels: > one > set between the machine with the physical disks (the XP box) and the > 'server' (the Ubuntu box), and a *second* set of network channels > between the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) and the final client(s) (the > client MS-Windows machine(s)). If this is on one physical network (if > the 'server' (the Ubuntu box) only has one NIC), then the you have > lots > of network collisions, which means your network thoughput will truely > suck (eg network timeouts, dropped/lost packets, etc.). > > I expect that 'before' you 'got by' by luck. What might be happening > now is that some fix to Samba is biting you or maybe you are getting > network I/O errors (timeouts?) because of what I described in the > paragraph above. > > What you are doing is not really going to work in the long term. You > either need to: > > 1) Buy a real, supported RAID card for the Ubuntu system. > 2) Live with mdadm > 3) Pay for licenses for the XP system. Couldn't agree more. One more item is that the CIFS share to the XP box is the user that mounted the file system on Ubuntu. Bah! Just ugly all around. > > > > > -- > Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 > Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System > http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows > heller(a)deepsoft.com -- > http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: [Samba] Problem After Upgrade - NT_STATUS_FILE_IS_A_DIRECTORY Next: [Samba] samba entry in ldap |