SMB SR Creation Fails
-
@Tristis-Oris Great, thank you
-
I had a similar experience not to long ago, though NFS on Synology for an existing directory that was previously connected to a recently rebuilt host.
We didn't get to far along on that, to fix the issue I made a new share on the synology, moved everything over and then connected the new share to XO without much fanfair.
-
@DustinB Yep, I am using NFS on Synology as well for ISO repository, storage repository (SR) and backup repository (BR). Also using a TrueNAS CORE host for NFS shares in my playlab. Both work great.
-
@gskger @Tristis-Oris @MathieuRA @olivierlambert
Can anyone tell me the difference between creating an SMB SR at Pool level vs at Host level ?Somehow XO does not allow storage to be created at 'Pool' level but through Xen Center, I am able to create an SMB SR at 'Pool' Level.
Will creating SR at pool level interfere with XO later (since this is not allowed by XO)?
Or is it simply a missing GUI in XO ? -
It doesn't matter, it's the exact same thing. Any NFS/SMB/iSCSI SR will be shared by all the pool members anyway.
-
Hmm.. In that case, should we change the GUI in XO to create it at Pool level only for cleaner interface (hide host lists) ?
Also, it will be a little more clearer that it would be shared.
(I mean this can be done in XO-6, since this is not a critical feature (though a good to have feature))
-
That's correct, we'll try to think it better for XO 6, even if there's no universal "better", it depends on many things (like maybe starting to select shared or not, but this might introduce complexity: we'll discuss that with @clemencebx )
-
@olivierlambert said in SMB SR Creation Fails:
(like maybe starting to select shared or not, but this might introduce complexity: we'll discuss that with @clemencebx )
Rather than selecting shared or not, we can simply have level of creation... eg. if created at pool level, it is shared, if at node level, then only connected to node.
That should help reduce complexity in UI.
-
There's many choices, so we'll see when discussing with @clemencebx
-
Hi!
The issue should be resolved on the branch
fix-smb-storage
