Celerra - adding a cifs server to existing shares

Collapsing multiple servers into one cifs landing point but keeping names.
Example:
Windows server1 has sharename data - copy files, create sharename data under cifs server1 name.
later on:
Windows server2 has sharename data - copy files to server1 data share and would like to add server2 cifs name and add the data share.
End result Server1,Server2 both have data share in the same location.

yea, already thought about doing that......I'm just curious why it doesnt allow editing on the celerra, if you already have the names in place and create the share, it allows you to add it to all the names.....but once it is created, you cant.

you might open a ticket with support ..there might be a way of modifying entries in nasdb to accomplish what you are trying to do. I would like to know myself ...

i am confused here, can you explain in more details what you are trying to do ? Typically you create a CIFS server and add shares to it ..not the other way around.

that sounds too complicated . What if you simply create one CIFS server SERVER3 with share name "data". Copy data from windows server1 and server2 to SERVER3 and create a DNS alias ..where server1 and server2 DNS entries point to ip address of SERVER3.

Hello petec
I have moved your question from the Powerlink lite forum into the Celerra forum, since you have access to all forums.

Regards
Julie
Forums Admin

thats because there are two type of CIFS shares

normally you would use a regular share - for that you specify which CIFS server it is valid on

The other option is a "global" share - that is available for all CIFS servers on that data mover

what you can do is just create another share with the same share name for that new CIFS server

changing between these two types after they have been created isnt implemented

I agree with the previous poster though - this sounds entirely too complicated.
I would suggest to just create one CIFS and use NetBIOS and DNS aliases to mimick the others ones

Rainer (et al.),

I just found out, on an NS80 with s/w version 5.6.44, that a CIFS share
that was initially set up as a global share using the GUI, can be changed
to a local share (and back !), but if the share was initially set up as 'local'
and thusly accessible to one specific CIFS server, you're out of luck
changing it to 'global', it appears.

"Share error: Sharename already used to declare netbios share"

Message ID: 13690601492


Eric.

Hi Eric,

I dont think that's really a committed functionality - I guess it just works this way by coincidence.

If you care you could open a Product Enhancement Request

You can do this from the command line actually, but you end up with an individual entry in the GUI for each export.

Example:

Lets say I have share 'DATA' on cifssrv1 which I access via \\cifssrv1\DATA.
I want to make it so I can also access DATA via cifsserv2

I have 2 ways of doing it in the CLI

1. Makes it show up properly, execute these two commands, as long as it's done within 30 seconds or so your windows hosts should not timeout from the blip in access.

server_export server_2 -unexport "DATA" -option netbios=cifssrv1
server_export server_2 "DATA" -option netbios=cifssrv1,netbios=cifssrv2 /DATA

2. Just add the second export, no loss of connectivity on the existing cifs.

server_export server_2 "DATA" -option netbios=cifssrv2 /DATA

Don't think of the Celerra as a Windows box, it's a UxFS filesystem underneath it all so NFS rules apply.

Unexporting it from the old CIFS share and then exporting it where you want it makes the most sense, otherwise you run the risk of having competing CIFS accesses to the same files.

Hi There.

I'm having this same issue in a NS120. I had a CIFS server "filer01", registered at a "Domain 1", with all permissions configured, quotas, etc. Now I have to create a new CIFS server because we need users from another domain to access the shares on that FS. I created "filer02" in "Domain 2" to do that, but I can't add the new CIFS server to the share properties.

Is there a solution for this two years from the original question in this post? :-) any workaround?