...it also confirms that SAMBA clustering is not (at least yet) supported
Although I just wrote that I'm done with this (and indeed I'm done) there is at least one comment I can't refrain myself to express, reacting to your point:
- Samba is now suffering from the exact same problem (and to me major drawback) as Microsoft Windows: this is all seen as a whole, single service while it provides many different services and features. Samba acts as domain controller, file server, DNS (to some extend via DLZ)
- thinking about HA and Samba without having clear understanding that these services are different and require different approach is, IMHO, a misconception.
DC HA exists, out of the box, when you configure additional DC. This brings de-facto "AD like" content synchronization (I'm discussing about Samba here, not Zentyal implementation). Therefore building cluster for this purpose (service) is not mandatory.
Same for DNS related stuff.
File server is another totally different story. File server is made of at least 2 layers:
- file server itself (as a service client is accessing)
- storage
In our implementation, this is often merged on same box but you may imagine this is done with 2 different layers, even when using one single box (e.g. look at Netapp implementation where clustering on one single box splits service layer and data layer).
So, to make a potentially long debate short, there is a need for file sharing HA that is very different from
DC HA and even from
Samba HA, reason why I react and suggest that you keep this in mind while addressing this point