xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: upgrade scenario for samba server

To: "'Simon Matter'" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: upgrade scenario for samba server
From: "Spyros Ioakim" <sioakim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:27:36 +0200
Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <CC9A3154C326EE4FAFF784F0A478516745B189@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
That is actually a very good idea...
During the weekend I was looking at Mandrake 9.0 that has builtin
support for XFS.
How do you guys feel about Mandrake?

Does it seem less professional than Redhat?

As I said the server is just samba with a couple of NFS exports...

Do you reckon that RH8 with a XFS enabled kernel is a more stable
solution?
If I go with RH8 I will go with your implementation Simon.
As far as I seen the XFS project releases updated kernels soon after
Redhat does so there shouldn't be any problems to keep up with all the
latest redhat patches....

Thank all,
Spyros

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Matter
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:53 AM
To: Ioakim Spyros
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: upgrade scenario for samba server


Spyros Ioakim schrieb:
> 
> I reboot the machine and install RH 8.0 using the xfs boot cd.I want
your
> comments on the size of the partitions here.
> Right now I had everything under / cause I wanted a dynamic use of
/home and
> /samba.
> 130GB to share between the two and redhat's files is much better for
me than
> having:
> /home 50 GB
> /samba 50 GB
> / 30 GB
> Since the filesystem is journalized I don't have problems with fsck in
case
> of power failure (very rare since the system is on a UPS)
> Even if I need to run fsck it takes about 15 minutes which is a good
time
> (for me) so I don't see why i would break it down...
> 
> So I'm thinking of having /boot 40MB ext3 and / 130 GB xfs.
> The bootloader will go to the MBR so there shouldn't be any problems
booting
> (so I read....)

Hi,

Another way was to put samba under /home as /home/samba. That way you
could make / a smaller partition and have the 130GB mounted on /home.
You could then create /boot and / as ext3 and only /home as XFS. If you
ever need to upgrade you distribution and there is no XFS installer
available, you could just use the RedHat disks to upgrade. After
upgrade, you install/recompile a XFS kernel and work goes on. I have
never installed like that but will maybe do so in future until RedHat
includes XFS.

Simon

> 
> After the system boots up with xfs I untar everything to /home and
/samba.
> I also take the necessary files from /etc (I don't restore this don't
worry)
> for the samba configuration, smbpasswd, passwd, shadow and whatever
else I
> might need.
> 
> Any comments/ideas would be appreciated...
> First of all will I get NT style permissions with samba or I'm just
going to
> get a system with XFS and no gain :-?
> Is there anything special required for samba to use those acls?
> 
> Thanks for reading the whole lot and waiting for comments :-)
> 
> Spyros


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>