Hi, Le 28/01/2015 10:28, Rowland Penny a ?crit :> On 28/01/15 02:37, Rich Webb wrote: > >> Also I'm hoping that the performance on this server will be faster >> than that of the domain controller. Currently this domain controller >> is serving files but I want to move that function to a dedicated box. >For months, there has been no explanation about the reason, just /don't do this/. And queries for a rationale behind this were rarely answered. Now there is only this sentence : We/*_do not recommend_*using the Domain Controller as a file Server. This is due to issues with the winbind internal to the Domain Controller. The recommendation is to run separate file orMember Servers <https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setup_a_Samba_AD_Member_Server>./ OK, so in fact the only reason is the poor internal winbind implementation, so this sentence won't be true after 4.2 release? In medium sized organizations with sparse small agencies around the country/world, having two boxes (either physical or through chroot) is not always an option so having the DC and the agency's fileserver merged makes sense. Regards<
On 28/01/15 10:02, S?bastien Le Ray wrote:> Hi, > > > Le 28/01/2015 10:28, Rowland Penny a ?crit : >> On 28/01/15 02:37, Rich Webb wrote: >> >>> Also I'm hoping that the performance on this server will be faster >>> than that of the domain controller. Currently this domain >>> controller is serving files but I want to move that function to a >>> dedicated box. >> > > For months, there has been no explanation about the reason, just > /don't do this/. And queries for a rationale behind this were rarely > answered. Now there is only this sentence : > > We/*_do not recommend_*using the Domain Controller as a file Server. > This is due to issues with the winbind internal to the Domain > Controller. The recommendation is to run separate file orMember > Servers > <https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setup_a_Samba_AD_Member_Server>./ > > > OK, so in fact the only reason is the poor internal winbind > implementation, so this sentence won't be true after 4.2 release?Probably not, but 4.2 hasn't been released yet (though it appears to be imminent), so, until it is released, the recommendation stands.> > In medium sized organizations with sparse small agencies around the > country/world, having two boxes (either physical or through chroot) is > not always an option so having the DC and the agency's fileserver > merged makes sense. >As long as you are prepared to put up with any problems that this setup may cause. For an example of possible problems see here: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11025 Rowland> Regards< > > >
Le 28/01/2015 11:12, Rowland Penny a ?crit :> On 28/01/15 10:02, S?bastien Le Ray wrote: > Probably not, but 4.2 hasn't been released yet (though it appears to > be imminent), so, until it is released, the recommendation stands. > >> >> In medium sized organizations with sparse small agencies around the >> country/world, having two boxes (either physical or through chroot) >> is not always an option so having the DC and the agency's fileserver >> merged makes sense. >> > > As long as you are prepared to put up with any problems that this > setup may cause. For an example of possible problems see here: > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11025Still winbind issue ;-)