I have been asked to set up a customer with Exchange 2000. I have tried to convert them, so please don't suggest it. We have 3 boxes we can use to do this with. We want to use Samba 3 as the PDC (ldap backend) and Samba 3 as BDC (ldap backend), with the exchange box as a domain member. Will this work? If not, what is the best way to ensure that : a. We have PDC and BDC for authentication purposes. b. Exchange server works as it should, authentication being from said PDC or BDC. c. File serving at minimum should be from Samba Do I understand right that ES2k needs AD? If so, does this mean I have to run 2 x W2k servers in order to achieve this? (1 w2k PDC and 1 w2k BDC) Is there any way to do it, or is anyone doing it with samba as the PDC and BDC? TIA Allen
E2K requires W2K Allen Bolderoff wrote:>I have been asked to set up a customer with Exchange 2000. > >I have tried to convert them, so please don't suggest it. > >We have 3 boxes we can use to do this with. > >We want to use Samba 3 as the PDC (ldap backend) and Samba 3 as BDC (ldap >backend), with the exchange box as a domain member. > >Will this work? > >If not, what is the best way to ensure that : >a. We have PDC and BDC for authentication purposes. >b. Exchange server works as it should, authentication being from said >PDC or BDC. >c. File serving at minimum should be from Samba > > >Do I understand right that ES2k needs AD? If so, does this mean I have to >run 2 x W2k servers in order to achieve this? (1 w2k PDC and 1 w2k BDC) > >Is there any way to do it, or is anyone doing it with samba as the PDC and >BDC? > > >TIA > >Allen > > > >
Active Directory is not a "PDC". You have to forest prep and domain prep against the Directory and then install Exchange. It works easiest on the machine that hosts AD (assuming you only have one) but it can be installed on a seperate box from the DC. Allen Bolderoff wrote:>So, E2k requires w2k acting as PDC? Or can it be a member server? > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Don Bivens [mailto:dbivens@carolinanetworking.com] >Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 9:18 AM >To: Allen Bolderoff >Cc: samba@lists.samba.org >Subject: Re: [Samba] Best way for exchange? > >E2K requires W2K > >Allen Bolderoff wrote: > > > >>I have been asked to set up a customer with Exchange 2000. >> >>I have tried to convert them, so please don't suggest it. >> >>We have 3 boxes we can use to do this with. >> >>We want to use Samba 3 as the PDC (ldap backend) and Samba 3 as BDC (ldap >>backend), with the exchange box as a domain member. >> >>Will this work? >> >>If not, what is the best way to ensure that : >>a. We have PDC and BDC for authentication purposes. >>b. Exchange server works as it should, authentication being from said >>PDC or BDC. >>c. File serving at minimum should be from Samba >> >> >>Do I understand right that ES2k needs AD? If so, does this mean I have to >>run 2 x W2k servers in order to achieve this? (1 w2k PDC and 1 w2k BDC) >> >>Is there any way to do it, or is anyone doing it with samba as the PDC and >>BDC? >> >> >>TIA >> >>Allen >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
Active Directory is not a "PDC". You have to forest prep and domain prep against the Directory and then install Exchange. It works easiest on the machine that hosts AD (assuming you only have one) but it can be installed on a seperate box from the DC. Thanks for your help Don, just to clarify, E2k requires AD. Therefore the only way to get 2 x authentication servers instead of 1, I will need to run 2x w2k servers with AD installed, working, and replicating. this way if the PDC equivalent machine goes down, the other machine will still handle authentication. And the samba box will have to be just a ADC member, which does not act as an authentication server itself. Either that or convince them to go to a *nix based messaging/groupware framework. Thanks Again Allen
What I did say was that a DC is not a PDC. PDC/BDC is an NT4 thing. ADS Servers and DC's are the same thing. You can have many DC's which means they run ADS. mike@jurney.org wrote:>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Don Bivens wrote: > > > >>Active Directory is not a "PDC". You have to forest prep and domain >>prep against the Directory and then install Exchange. It works easiest >>on the machine that hosts AD (assuming you only have one) but it can be >>installed on a seperate box from the DC. >> >> > >I'm a unix geek and have been for my entire career. I'm fighting this >ADS/PDC confusion right now, so if you can back up the assertion that an >Active Directory Server can exist without being a Windows2000 Domain >Controller (possibly running mixed-mode) with a pointer to some >documentation saying as much I would be _ever_ so grateful. > > >