[CLUE-Tech] apache and samba

[Chris Tubutis]

I have no idea about Samba v3.0, you might give it a try. Or maybe try
and find the cause of the behavior you're seeing now, I think you can
enable various debug stuff and get rather copious output as to what's
going on. You might subscribe to the Samba list(s) and see what kind of
resources they offer, FAQs and such before asking those guys. Or maybe
there's a way to run an NFS server from a w2k box *shudder*

ct


On 23 Oct, Mike Staver wrote:
> Yeah, the problem with a cron job is this stuff has to be instant. 
> People upload a document, it has to immediately be accessible to 
> everyone on all 3 machines.  So, NFS might work - except for the fact 
> that the 4th box is my companies file server, which is a windows 2k
> box.
>    I have not tried Samba 3.0 yet, so maybe that is more compatible?
> 
> Chris Tubutis wrote:
> 
>> I've used the same concept in the past - a single source used by
>> multiple boxes & httpd daemons. Having those three httpd boxes out of
>> sync doesn't give one warm, fuzzy feelings. :) I've done a few things
>> in the past, none of 'em involved Samba (much). You might have your
>> CF stuff upload stuff to a 4th box, just like you're doing now. But
>> instead of having the Web servers access that via Samba, how about if
>> they access it via NFS automount? Another possibility... upload to
>> the 4th box, then have a periodic cron job that uses rdist or rsync
>> or some such to update the httpd boxes.
>> 
>> ct
>> 
>> On 23 Oct, Mike Staver wrote:
>> 
>>>I have 3 webservers set up that I have some code on that allows me to 
>>>upload documents through cold fusion for various reasons.  These 3 
>>>webservers are all mirrors of each other, and round robin dns is what 
>>>spits users to the different servers.  So, when a document is
>>>uploaded, it only gets uploaded to one of the webservers... and the
>>>mirror is no longer a mirror :)  So, my solution to this was to add
>>>a fourth machine and mount a share on it via samba and have all the
>>>webservers use that for the file repository.  I'm not sure this is
>>>the best way to do this - using samba and all.  Sometimes on the
>>>webservers when I run dmesg, I see stuff like this:
>>>
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=25
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=26
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=27
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=28
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=29
>>>smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid
>>>smb_retry: successful, new pid=5679, generation=30
>>>
>>>And then ofcourse, there is sometimes a lag while it "remounts" the 
>>>drive after these errors, so the website is slowed down a bit by this. 
>>>But after it remounts, it's great - until it loses it's connection 
>>>again.  Is there something I can do about this, or is there a better
>>>way to have mulitiple webservers share documents?
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CLUE-Tech mailing list
>> Post messages to: CLUE-Tech at clue.denver.co.us
>> Unsubscribe or manage your options:
>> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>