I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, and I'm trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 Server, or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of samba. The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in the past. Is that still the case? The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't cost them $$ to continue using the OS, but it cannot take advantage of newer hardware/technologies, so its slower. Thanks for any info...
In my case the performance was still bad. But use a normal windows client as domain member with a share where the access database is on. With 20 User there should be no problem. And this should be much faster than an old W2000. ----------------------------------------------- EDV Daniel M?ller Leitung EDV Tropenklinik Paul-Lechler-Krankenhaus Paul-Lechler-Str. 24 72076 T?bingen Tel.: 07071/206-463, Fax: 07071/206-499 eMail: mueller at tropenklinik.de Internet: www.tropenklinik.de ----------------------------------------------- -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Im Auftrag von compdoc Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Januar 2011 13:24 An: samba at lists.samba.org Betreff: [Samba] MS Access I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, and I'm trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 Server, or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of samba. The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in the past. Is that still the case? The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't cost them $$ to continue using the OS, but it cannot take advantage of newer hardware/technologies, so its slower. Thanks for any info... -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
What version of Access? I find that, in general Office 2003 plays a little nicer with Samba than Office 2007 (Office likes to change file perms on files.) Does Microsoft even supply security patches for Windows 2000 anymore? (For me, when MS did not provide patches for extended daylight savings, that was the sign it was time to give up.) Between security patches and hardware capability running Windows 2000 should be out of the question. And I don't think there is a 64-bit version of Windows 2000 anyway. So really your question should be Samba/Linux vs Windows 2008- although giving yourself til this weekend to plan, test and deploy is cutting it a little tight. I believe their are sernet packages for Samba 3.3. on Centos 5.x. But I would go with something a little more leading edge- in my case I like Fedora Core 11 or Fedora Core 12 which ships with (or updates to ) samba 3.4.x. On 01/13/2011 07:24 AM, compdoc wrote:> I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, and I'm > trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 Server, > or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of samba. > > The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access > databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in the > past. Is that still the case? > > The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't cost > them $$ to continue using the OS, but it cannot take advantage of newer > hardware/technologies, so its slower. > > Thanks for any info... > > >
PS I should clarify that I have not especially noticed problems with MS Access 2003/2007 on Samba but we don't use it heavily. I WOULD expect that you will need to spend a little time tweeking file permissions. I use Samba 3.4.x and 3.0.x with Solaris 10 and ZFS file system. ZFS supports file system permisions which are similar to Windows but not quite the same- so file permissions don't always translate cleanly between windows/samba clients and the underlying unix file system. (I think the deal is that one uses posix standards and one uses nfsv4 standards.) Linux ext3/ext4 may be more consistent with windows. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Samba] MS Access Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:07:05 -0500 From: Gaiseric Vandal <gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com> Reply-To: gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com To: samba at lists.samba.org What version of Access? I find that, in general Office 2003 plays a little nicer with Samba than Office 2007 (Office likes to change file perms on files.) Does Microsoft even supply security patches for Windows 2000 anymore? (For me, when MS did not provide patches for extended daylight savings, that was the sign it was time to give up.) Between security patches and hardware capability running Windows 2000 should be out of the question. And I don't think there is a 64-bit version of Windows 2000 anyway. So really your question should be Samba/Linux vs Windows 2008- although giving yourself til this weekend to plan, test and deploy is cutting it a little tight. I believe their are sernet packages for Samba 3.3. on Centos 5.x. But I would go with something a little more leading edge- in my case I like Fedora Core 11 or Fedora Core 12 which ships with (or updates to ) samba 3.4.x. On 01/13/2011 07:24 AM, compdoc wrote:> I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, and I'm > trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 Server, > or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of samba. > > The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access > databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in the > past. Is that still the case? > > The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't cost > them $$ to continue using the OS, but it cannot take advantage of newer > hardware/technologies, so its slower. > > Thanks for any info... > > >
> > > I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, > and I'm > trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 > Server,Seriously? http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2010/01/14/windows-2000-server-approaching-end-of-life.aspx> > > or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of > samba.One can always build from source.> > > > The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access > databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in > the > past. Is that still the case?Access has issues. What version? Most problems seem to boil down to file perms. I rarely had problems with Access files on FreeBSD/Samba platforms.> > > > The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't > cost > them $$ to continue using the OS,You'd best check the licensing. They most certainly don't "own" W2K server.> > but it cannot take advantage of newer > hardware/technologies, so its slower. > > Thanks for any info... > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
I mentioned zfs , not because linux uses zfs specifically, but some of the issues you might run into using a "unix" file system that supports ACL's. Sometimes a file may be created that then can't get deleted, or a file may be created and then MS Office CHANGES the perms on the file so that you can't do additional file writes. With my system I had to make sure the parent directory had sufficient permissions set, including for read/write attributes as well as read/write data. I don't think anyone at my work uses Access as a multiuser database anyway. MS PowerPoint would append a file on most saves but on every 5th or 7th save it would try to write a new file and delete the old one, with the result that the entire file would be delete if permissions on the parent ZFS directory weren't set correctly. The older Solaris file system (UFS) did not have this problem. So do some testing and make sure your files are backed up. On 01/13/2011 09:21 AM, compdoc wrote:> The only zfs that I find for centos is zfs-fuse, which works fine, but cuts > write speeds to half of what ext3 or ext4 would be. > > > > >