RE: Continuously available CIFS

The sessions will live on the node where the connection is. That node's nblade keeps the locks, which is the source of the blips that happen on takeovers. So you should be fine.

SMB 2.x and 3.x are pretty resilient, so the blip is often minor.

-----Original Message-----
From: SE <[email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:06 AM
To: Parisi, Justin <[email protected]>
Cc: Toasters <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Continuously available CIFS

NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.




Thank you Justin for your response.

Since this is a four-node cluster, if I force this application’s CIFS traffic through a lif on HA-pair “A” to a volume on an aggr owned by a controller in HA-pair “B” would those sessions still be severed if I upgrade HA-pair “B”?  Would “B”s takeover/giveback process of changing aggr ownership also require severing CIFS sessions?


> On Mar 13, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Parisi, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Microsoft and NetApp stance is that CA shares are supported only for HyperV and SQL workloads at this time.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of s.eno via Toasters
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:39 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject:
>
> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Toasters mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

On Mar 13, 2019, at 8:39 AM, s.eno <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Does anyone here utilize continuously available CIFS shares for anything other than Hyper-V and/or SQL?  If so, do you have real-world results on how those shares do during ONTAP upgrades?

I need to perform upgrades on a 4-node cluster and have a mission critical application that doesn’t like it when the takeover/giveback process severs its CIFS sessions.  I’m trying to figure out a way to do this without causing downtime to the application which in-turn causes push-back on the upgrade plan.

The application appears to be connecting to the shares via SMB3_1, so it should support CA, right?  I’ve tested checking the CA box on one of its shares and the app drains connections to the share and stops sending any more traffic, so it appears to not like something related to that change. One of its shares, however, was provisioned with that box checked and that one works just fine as far as traffic & sessions go.

--
Scott
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters