samba - Jul 2016 - Why is Samba4 not recommended as a file server?

Mark Foley <mfoley at ohprs.org> writes:
> Since you bring up that topic (Samba4 not recommended as a file server),
I've been meaning to
> ask on this list for a while: Why?
> [...]
>> As for the info you would like adding to the wiki, it used to be there,
>> but when the wiki was re-written, it was removed. The thinking seemed
to
>> be, as samba doesn't recommend using the DC as a fileserver, it 
>> shouldn't be there. Samba has been recommending not using the DC as
a
What was said is "not using the DC as file server", not "not
using
Samba".

My understanding is that it is better to have one machine running the DC
and another serving files.

Best regards,

Olivier

On 2016-07-28 at 12:43 +0700, Olivier wrote:
> Mark Foley <mfoley at ohprs.org> writes:
> 
> > Since you bring up that topic (Samba4 not recommended as a file
server), I've been meaning to
> > ask on this list for a while: Why?
> > [...]
> >> As for the info you would like adding to the wiki, it used to be
there,
> >> but when the wiki was re-written, it was removed. The thinking
seemed to
> >> be, as samba doesn't recommend using the DC as a fileserver,
it
> >> shouldn't be there. Samba has been recommending not using the
DC as a
> 
> What was said is "not using the DC as file server", not "not
using
> Samba".
> 
> My understanding is that it is better to have one machine running the DC
> and another serving files.
Exactly.

And it is a recommendation for a better layout,
not a strict requirement.

Reasons being that it is genrally better to separate
responsibilites, and that in this case, you have more
control over the fine-tunings of a file server if it
is not at the same time an AD/DC.

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160728/d47ed880/signature.sig>

On 28/07/16 07:43, Michael Adam wrote:
> Exactly. And it is a recommendation for a better layout, not a strict 
> requirement. Reasons being that it is genrally better to separate 
> responsibilites, and that in this case, you have more control over the 
> fine-tunings of a file server if it is not at the same time an AD/DC. 
> Cheers - Michael
>
This is all very well and good Michael, but what if you only have one 
computer ?

Microsoft recognised this and produced SBS, there are entire Linux 
distro's being built around this idea (Clearos, SME), are they doing 
wrong, or should the wiki now reflect this reality ?

What would help is if winbindd on the DC could be made to work more like 
it does on a domain member i.e. allow setting of ranges

Rowland