samba - Feb 2009 - Multiple subnets, multiple domains and one LDAP

Hi all.

    I'm being asked to connect two networks, each having it's own PDC 
and it's own LDAP backend. I would like to know if it's possible to make
both PDC's serve each a different domain with a single LDAP backend and 
having users from DOMAIN1 roaming to DOMAIN2 and viceversa.

    If it's of any use I have, in the past, set up a PDC+BDC 
configuration having replicating LDAP directories in two different 
locations (following the documentation of "The Official Samba 3.0.x 
HOWTO and Reference Guide" and "Samba-3 by Example") but I've
been
googling this one up and couldn't find any relevant information.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance.
    David Wells.

On Wednesday 04 February 2009 12:02:55 David Wells
wrote:
> Hi all.
>
>     I'm being asked to connect two networks, each having it's own
PDC
> and it's own LDAP backend. I would like to know if it's possible to
make
> both PDC's serve each a different domain with a single LDAP backend and
> having users from DOMAIN1 roaming to DOMAIN2 and viceversa.
>
>     If it's of any use I have, in the past, set up a PDC+BDC
> configuration having replicating LDAP directories in two different
> locations (following the documentation of "The Official Samba 3.0.x
> HOWTO and Reference Guide" and "Samba-3 by Example") but
I've been
> googling this one up and couldn't find any relevant information.
>
>     Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance.
>     David Wells.
David,

It is certainly possible to have a shared LDAP server for two separate 
domains, but please make certain that each domain has its own DIT. 

For example. for domains DOM-A and DOM-B use in the one LDAP tree:
	dc=doma,dc=example,dc=com
	dc=domb,dc=example,dc=com

The sharing of users between two separate domains does not work.  If users 
from one domain need access into the resources of another domain that should 
be done via trust relationships.

- John T.
-- 
John H Terpstra

"If at first you don't succeed, don't go sky-diving!"

Hello everyone,

I have some questions regarding RAID5 + XFS + Samba + High speed 
network. I have configured a server with an Areca Controler (SATA) with 
10 x 1 TB HDs. The controle is configured with two RAID5, one of 5 TB 
the other 3 TB. The machine also has 8Gb of ram, the OS runs on a SDD 
drive (no mechanical parts), and has two dual quadcore Opterons.

I formated the partitions with XFS to have the best speed. The two RAID 
partitions are mounted over specific folders that are shared via Samba 
to the network.

Since a lot of data will be moved I created a bonding over 6 Intel Gbit 
ports connected to the switch (the switch is also configured with the 
proper LAG).

I still "feel" this configuration could be running faster, anyone has 
any idea where I could optimize it ? (the XFS format paramaters, Areca 
setup, bonding parameters, etc).

I know this is not specialy Samba related, but it's the first time I 
drop on the network a linux server for high speed storage by myself, so 
I'm sure there are a lot of things that can be tuned.



Thanks,



A.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:34:22AM +0100, Agustin Eguia
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have some questions regarding RAID5 + XFS + Samba + High speed 
> network. I have configured a server with an Areca Controler (SATA) with 
> 10 x 1 TB HDs. The controle is configured with two RAID5, one of 5 TB 
> the other 3 TB. The machine also has 8Gb of ram, the OS runs on a SDD 
> drive (no mechanical parts), and has two dual quadcore Opterons.
> 
> I formated the partitions with XFS to have the best speed. The two RAID 
> partitions are mounted over specific folders that are shared via Samba 
> to the network.
> 
> Since a lot of data will be moved I created a bonding over 6 Intel Gbit 
> ports connected to the switch (the switch is also configured with the 
> proper LAG).
> 
> I still "feel" this configuration could be running faster, anyone
has
> any idea where I could optimize it ? (the XFS format paramaters, Areca 
> setup, bonding parameters, etc).
One thing that really helps in specific workloads is to put
the XFS journal on a physical drive different from where the
data lives.

Apart from it, performance tuning is really something that
is very difficult to do remotely. Someone experienced must
log into your box.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20090205/22cd8fe9/attachment.bin

> I still "feel" this configuration could be running faster, 
> anyone has any idea where I could optimize it ? (the XFS 
> format paramaters, Areca setup, bonding parameters, etc).
My experience says that the SATA/RAID5 will bottleneck the system well
before you hit the limits of your 6GB trunk.

RAID10 is less computationally expensive for the RAID controller and
gives greater access concurrency (ie any given data can be read from a
choice of drives).

SAS drives/controllers are full duplex which means the bus can be
reading/writing at the same time, and so is much faster for high
read/write setups. It depends a lot on how the box is to be used.

Cheers

Alex

-- 
Alex Harrington - Network Development Manager
Longhill High School
t: 01273 391672 e: alex@longhill.org.uk

> I have some questions regarding RAID5 + XFS + Samba + High speed network. I
> have configured a server with an Areca Controler (SATA) with 10 x 1 TB HDs.
> The controle is configured with two RAID5, one of 5 TB the other 3 TB. The
> machine also has 8Gb of ram, the OS runs on a SDD drive (no mechanical
> parts), and has two dual quadcore Opterons.
>
> I formated the partitions with XFS to have the best speed. The two RAID
> partitions are mounted over specific folders that are shared via Samba to
> the network.
>
> Since a lot of data will be moved I created a bonding over 6 Intel Gbit
> ports connected to the switch (the switch is also configured with the
proper
> LAG).
>
> I still "feel" this configuration could be running faster, anyone
has any
> idea where I could optimize it ? (the XFS format paramaters, Areca setup,
> bonding parameters, etc).
How fast is it already, what are the throughputs?

-Kristian