hi all, Here is the situation. We are currently upgrading our infrastructure to use LDAP as our authentication mechanism and I intend to also have Samba look at LDAP. I had this working in a test case using 2.2 as a PDC awhile ago. Should I be using 3.0 or 2.2 for this implementation? I realize that 3.0 is still quite alpha-quailty, but I've also read one or two interview with the developers stating that 3.0 is actually more stable than 2.2 at this point and that they recommend using it. My main concern is that the LDAP schema will change again before the final 3.0 release - this is also what is making me wary of using 2.2, since the schemas are pretty different should we want to upgrade to 3.x in the future. Any advice is much appreciated. thanks, -jkl
I have been using the cvs sources for samba 3.0 for 3 months now with out a problem and have really enjoyed some of the new functionality of 3.0 like the group mappings and LDAP with 3.0 does work and is simple to setup as well. I would recommend using it especially if you are utilizing any win XP systems. --- Jeffrey D. Means CIO for MeansPC meaje@meanspc.com http://www.meanspc.com -----Original Message----- From: samba-bounces@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of josh+samba@mookiemookie.net Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:06 PM To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: [Samba] Samba 2.2 or 3.0? hi all, Here is the situation. We are currently upgrading our infrastructure to use LDAP as our authentication mechanism and I intend to also have Samba look at LDAP. I had this working in a test case using 2.2 as a PDC awhile ago. Should I be using 3.0 or 2.2 for this implementation? I realize that 3.0 is still quite alpha-quailty, but I've also read one or two interview with the developers stating that 3.0 is actually more stable than 2.2 at this point and that they recommend using it. My main concern is that the LDAP schema will change again before the final 3.0 release - this is also what is making me wary of using 2.2, since the schemas are pretty different should we want to upgrade to 3.x in the future. Any advice is much appreciated. thanks, -jkl -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003
Jason: Number 1: first upgrade to a newer RedHat (rh) I personally like 8.0 and am in the process of testing rh 9. 7.3 was a great stable system but having the POSIX compliance in the kernel is a great thing, along with ACL's which when utilizing samba is so nice. It allows use of user/group Access Control Lists similar to NTFS so that from a NT based system you just add / delete users and groups from the ACL like you do on NTFS. Or you could run the SGI XFS file system by recompiling your kernel to achieve the same results. BTW they took out the ext3 ACL support in rh 9 but rh 8.0 has ext3 ACL support unless you use red hat network (rhn) to stay current on kernels. Number 2: upgrade using rpm's whenever possible to stay within the rhn upgrade path. Rhn will make your life as an rh admin so much easier when used properly i.e. testing for updates on a daily basis. I am guessing that when samba 3.0 goes release-ware there will be an immediate rpm placed in the next major release of rh and possibly even into a minor release as well. --- Jeffrey D. Means CIO for MeansPC meaje@meanspc.com http://www.meanspc.com -----Original Message----- From: Jason Williams [mailto:jwilliams@courtesymortgage.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:21 PM To: meaje@meanspc.com Subject: RE: [Samba] Samba 2.2 or 3.0? Jeffrey, Hello. I just happened to come across your email here. I just have one quick question for you regarding Samba 3.0. Currently, I am setting up a Samba PDC with LDAP using samba 2.2.8a and OpenLDAP 2.0.27. I've heard many good things about Samba 3.0, but management here will not use anything that is in alpha or beta release. My question is, when it comes time for me to upgrade to 3.0, do you have any recommendations on the best way to go about upgrading? I'd like to make it as seamless and easy as possible. I should mention, i'm using RH 7.3. I appreciate it. Cheers, Jason At 12:15 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, you wrote:>I have been using the cvs sources for samba 3.0 for 3 months now with >out a problem and have really enjoyed some of the new functionality of >3.0 like the group mappings and LDAP with 3.0 does work and is simpleto>setup as well. I would recommend using it especially if you are >utilizing any win XP systems. > >--- >Jeffrey D. Means >CIO for MeansPC >meaje@meanspc.com http://www.meanspc.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: samba-bounces@lists.samba.org >[mailto:samba-bounces@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of >josh+samba@mookiemookie.net >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:06 PM >To: samba@lists.samba.org >Subject: [Samba] Samba 2.2 or 3.0? > >hi all, > >Here is the situation. We are currently upgrading our infrastructureto>use LDAP as our authentication mechanism and I intend to also have >Samba look at LDAP. I had this working in a test case using 2.2 as a >PDC awhile ago. > >Should I be using 3.0 or 2.2 for this implementation? I realize that >3.0 >is still quite alpha-quailty, but I've also read one or two interview >with the developers stating that 3.0 is actually more stable than 2.2 >at this point and that they recommend using it. > >My main concern is that the LDAP schema will change again before the >final 3.0 release - this is also what is making me wary of using 2.2, >since the schemas are pretty different should we want to upgrade to 3.x >in the future. > >Any advice is much appreciated. > >thanks, > >-jkl >-- >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003
On Sat, 2003-05-17 at 04:06, josh+samba@mookiemookie.net wrote:> hi all, > > Here is the situation. We are currently upgrading our infrastructure to > use LDAP as our authentication mechanism and I intend to also have > Samba look at LDAP. I had this working in a test case using 2.2 as a > PDC awhile ago. > > Should I be using 3.0 or 2.2 for this implementation? I realize that 3.0 > is still quite alpha-quailty, but I've also read one or two interview > with the developers stating that 3.0 is actually more stable than 2.2 > at this point and that they recommend using it. > > My main concern is that the LDAP schema will change again before the > final 3.0 release - this is also what is making me wary of using 2.2, > since the schemas are pretty different should we want to upgrade to 3.x > in the future. > > Any advice is much appreciated.Samba 3.0 has just entered feature freeze, and has changed LDAP schema. The old schema is still supported as a configuration option. The LDAP support in Samba 3.0 is much better. In particular, it will no longer change attribute values from x to x. (ie, only changes from x to y will be sent to the server). This has an impact on multivalued attributes, which in 2.2 we would rationalize. If using Samba 3.0, use current CVS of today, rather than the alpha just taken, as a bug in our group handling caused some nasty behavior. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett abartlet@pcug.org.au Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet@samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet@hawkerc.net http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20030517/bb49ebe3/attachment.bin