Re: Continuously available CIFS

Another idea: since it's a SMB 3 connection, how about *multipathing*?
Supported since 9.4 on ONTAP... Appeared in System Manager in 9.5.

Have 2 LIFs on the usual node. Move them one after the other
nondisruptively to the other HA pair before an upgrade and back, when
you're done.

Should be completely non-disruptive to the connection/session, or what do
you think, Justin?

Greetings from Northfriesland

Sebastian

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019, 15:22 Parisi, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hmm. Have you engaged the application vendor to see if there is some sort
> of configuration option you can toggle?
>
> Or perhaps root cause why the upgrades are causing the issue?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: s.eno <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:04 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 very much for the assistance Justin.
>
> It is frustrating because as you say the application should recover,
> especially if it is connecting via SMB3_1, but all previous upgrades showed
> this application not recovering and forcing reboots of its application
> servers to get it functional again.
>
> --
> Scott
> [email protected]
>
> > On Mar 13, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Parisi, Justin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
-- 

sent from my mobile, spellcheck might have messed up...

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