similar to: samba 3 EOL ?

On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 11:37 +0100, Klaus Hartnegg wrote: > Am 10.03.2015 um 11:00 schrieb Sergio Rizzi: > > By reading https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Roadmap#Trust_support seems > > that trust support is not finished yet, btw in changelogs seems that in > > 4.2.* (with winbindd) interdomain trusts are now working. > > The release notes say that windindd "paves

Hi, We plan to upgrade servers, and wonder which configuration is future-proof. Must we switch to AD, or will a new Standalone Server also continue to serve Windows 10 clients? Several messages suggest that new Windows sometimes cannot access old Samba. What exactly is the cause? Is it Standalone Server versus Domain, is it old-style PDC versus AD, or is it SMB protocol version 1 versus 2 or

Many first time users of Samba-4 seem to struggle with the same issues. I suggest the Wiki should have a Readme First similar like this: http://www.klaus-hartnegg.de/gpo/14-03-12-samba4.html It basicly says that Samba 4 can behave either like Samba 3, or as AD-DC, in which case it should do nothing else. Then it lists the main differences, limitations, and requirements. I would love to see a

Am 06.06.2018 um 12:41 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > I think that 'standalone' machines will continue Thank you very much for clarification. This means that SMB1 and PDC are the problems, not lack of AD. But if we later need to switch to AD, is there a method like classicupgrade to do it? Currently classicupgrade of a standalone server Samba 3 creates a standalone server Samba

Hi, The web page https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/ must be from the last millenium, it offers a "tarball of the daily docs build" of version 3.3 The manpage for vfs_recycle is even worse, it says: "This man page is correct for version 3.0.25 of the Samba suite." Is there a chance that we can get man pages which describe all options of samba 4.2? Specifically I was looking

Hi, when I don't want to switch to Active Directory, but don't want to be stuck on version 3.6 either, can I simply give samba 4 a copy of the old smb.conf file? Will it be able to store all windows acl's in extended attributes, or is this improvement only available in combination with letting it run as active directory domain controller? thanks, Klaus

On 11/28/2014 9:23 AM, Klaus Hartnegg wrote: > > Is there anything else that I could try, > or do I just have to stay on protocol NT1 > as long as we still use this old software? > > Klaus Try in [global] acl allow execute always=true -- Regards -------------------------------------- Gerald Drouillard Technology Architect Drouillard & Associates, Inc.

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Klaus Hartnegg <hartnegg at uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > Am 13.05.2015 um 17:30 schrieb S?bastien Le Ray: > >> No they aren't >>> >> >> Yes they are >> > > Not sure about this, but mostly irrelevant anyway, because of this effect > in the other direction: > > If you have set Windows ACLs, and then change

Hi, maybe this thread should ask an even more general question: How are AD-DC admins supposed to test upgrades? If there is more than one AD-DC, an upgraded DC which causes problems cannot (must not) be restored from backup. This is one of the reasons why I do not want to switch to AD. A PDC *can* simply be restored from backup. It is even enough to switch back to the previous contents of

Thanks for your help and replies. Yes, I meant "store dos attributes". It's pretty clear now that I need to keep the parameter 'store dos attributes=no' since 1) the server is an AD member server and 2) the map* parameters don't do the right thing under ZFS / NFSV4 ACLs. I've read that the steps Klaus Hartnegg listed resolves the issue on ZFS on Linux; however, I

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Klaus Hartnegg wrote: > Am 24.04.2015 um 01:02 schrieb Carl G. Riches: >> I'm unable to join a Windows 7 PC >> to the Samba 4 domain when "hosts allow" is defined > >> hosts allow = 127 10.208.29. 10.108.29. > > Maybe the new version insists there must be a dot after the 127. > I put the dot in, to no avail. I also modified the

Hi Klaus, I haven't used that tool for at least 13 years but I do recall that, among other things, it read from the registry. Coupled with the fact that Samba 4 AD is not a complete implementation of AD I can't imagine that it could possibly work. More to the point, I'd be seriously concerned about the results. This is not something I'm prepared to test in a production

Hi, Is it normal that "chown $user $file" and "chown :$group $file" destroy the Windows-ACLs? Is it normal that changing the file owner in Windows does not change the file owner in Linux, but changing the file owner in Linux does change the file owner in Windows? This should be mentioned in >

Hi, Following the wiki page Setting_up_a_Share_Using_Windows_ACLs windows shows me this error after clicking on Shares: Disk Management could not start the Virtual Disk Service (VDS) on 'COMPUTER'. This can happen if the remote computer does not support VDS, or if a connection cannot be established because it was blocked by Windows Firewall. Tested on a new provisioned AD-DC server.

Hi, For me the main challenge in updating to samba 4 are docs. This was also the case with samba 3, but 4 is a lot more challenging. I end up spending hours testing different variants, because by reading docs I cannot find answers, even after hours of searching. The results of google-search are a mixture of pages for samba 3, samba 4, and some where it's unclear which version they

> On 29.09.2017 14:32 Rowland Penny wrote: > I cannot see where it says not to use on a DC I misread the first section. > What does 'getent passwd username' actually produce ? root at dc1:~# getent passwd administrator COMPANY\administrator:*:0:100::/home/COMPANY/administrator:/bin/false root at dc1:~# getent passwd klaus

Hi, Just wondering: What are you guys using to deploy software on your windows (7) workstations within the samba4 AD? These are options I know of: * wpkg (but it seems it's development is not too active) * wpkg-gp using the group policies * www.opsi.org (Client Management System for Windows clients) * standard windows software deployment, but I think that's msi-only This page also has

Hi, The security tab of Windows does not accept unix groupnames, although they do work in icacls.exe on the commandline. It displays existing group rights, and allows to modify them, but does not allow to add new rights for unix groups, and the search function also does not list unix groups. Is there a trick to make them work in the security tab? I don't have OUs or AD-groups, this is classic

Hi, The group that is mapped to rid=512 cannot be used in "valid users", the users cannot map the share (error 5). Is this normal? Should I file a bug? Version 4.1.6-Ubuntu server role = classic primary domain controller smb.conf: valid users = +smbadmin command: net groupmap add ntgroup="Domain Admins" unixgroup=smbadmin rid=512 type=d As soon as I remove the group

Hi, I want to run samba (compiled from source) in Devuan 2 (like Debian but without SystemD). The start scrip from the wiki page does not exist https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Managing_the_Samba_AD_DC_Service_Using_an_Init_Script https://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb... -> Not Found (The requested URL /gitweb/ was not found on this server) So I installed the default samba package from Debian,