On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:01 +0100, Christian Huldt
wrote:> Stupid question ahead
>
> background:
> Our office is moving, and we are currently using a samba server with
> an aging nt4 pdc.
> The NT4 will not be a part of the new network, either we replace it
> or promote the samba (3.0.21c AFAIK) to pdc.
>
> To me the obvious choice is to install ldap and promote the samba
> server to pdc, but...
>
> (OK, here it comes...)
>
> It is a bit tempting to replace the nt4 pdc with a samba4 server that
> only deals with ads (i.e. passwd server = ...)
>
> I will have a few weeks for experiments...
>
> Other than samba4 being new, hot and cool I suspect that there will
> be more and more win apps more or less requiring ads over time, and
> this would be a good time to make the move...
>
> Is this (the latter, using samba4) overly stupid?
The main challenge is that as we continue to develop Samba4, the
internal database formats may change. It very much depends how involved
in the development process you want to be. The feedback from actual
deployment to an actual site would be invaluable.
Samba4 cannot be a BDC at the moment, because we have no replication
mechanism. We also need to lock down some more things (registry ACLs,
SWAT) as mentioned in the release notes. Hmm, perhaps I've just found
the little project I'll spend time on next...
If you are interested, I'll be very happy to spend some time working
with you on it. But you should probably go with Samba 3.0 as an LDAP
backed PDC if you want a more tested production environment.
Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
-------------- 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/20070201/50f03abf/attachment.bin