The various pages about samba 4 warn about rough edges, upgrade, file services, and print services. I have some domains that have never had a Windows domain that now need Windows AD authentication. I don't need file services and print services, and upgrade is not a problem. Is samba 4 ready for this use case, or should we still go with Microsoft's AD? Thanks! - Morty
Exactly WHY do you need AD instead of NT domains? Without understanding that, I don't think your question can be answered. In some cases, you can use a stand-alone Kerberos and/or LDAP server. Or conversely, some application you use may require a Microsoft AD server, sometimes even a specific version. Basically, your tradeoff is between cost and risk. Windows 2008 R2 is all but guaranteed to work no matter what AD issue you throw at it, but it can get expensive, especially if you have many users. On the other hand, Samba is free, but Samba 4 is pretty unproven at this point.> -----Original Message----- > From: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org [mailto:samba- > bounces at lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Morty > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:19 PM > To: samba at lists.samba.org > Subject: [Samba] samba 4 for new authentication domain? > > The various pages about samba 4 warn about rough edges, upgrade, file > services, and print services. I have some domains that have never had > a Windows domain that now need Windows AD authentication. I don't > need file services and print services, and upgrade is not a problem. > Is samba 4 ready for this use case, or should we still go with > Microsoft's AD? > > Thanks! > > - Morty > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 00:18 -0400, Morty wrote:> The various pages about samba 4 warn about rough edges, upgrade, file > services, and print services. I have some domains that have never had > a Windows domain that now need Windows AD authentication. I don't > need file services and print services, and upgrade is not a problem. > Is samba 4 ready for this use case, or should we still go with > Microsoft's AD?Samba4 is ready to be used by Administrators who are willing to help with any rough edges they encounter. There will be some, but the vast majority of those who try out Samba4 are actually surprised by how overstated our warnings were for their actual use case. Even file services work well - and are a critical part of group policy and roaming profiles. Have a look at the videos we have recently produced. We are very much working on Samba4, but it is also very much working for our users. http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/videos Give it a try - particularly if you can put your traditional file-server and printer roles on a Samba3 member server. You will quickly find out what works for you, and what does not. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Cisco Inc. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20100501/e27b0eef/attachment.pgp>