> On 3 Nov 2020, at 19:24, Stefan Kania via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Am 03.11.20 um 05:38 schrieb O'Connor, Daniel via samba: >> Hi, >> I have a Samba 4.11.8 system running as an AD and a file server and I am wondering what sort of ID mapping is done in this situation. >> >> I have uidNumber on each user set to use UIDs in the 1000 range but I find that they end up in the 3000000 range instead. >> >> Is this a fixable problem, or a result of having the file server and DC as the same machine? >> >> Thanks. > On an DC the mapping starts allway with 3.000.000 you cant change it. > That's the reason why you should not use a DC as fileserverOK, it would be nice if that was documented. IMHO just saying "don't do it!" without providing the details of the downsides does make it difficult to make an informed decision about a deployment. -- Daniel O'Connor "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
On 03/11/2020 12:05, O'Connor, Daniel via samba wrote:> >> On 3 Nov 2020, at 19:24, Stefan Kania via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> Am 03.11.20 um 05:38 schrieb O'Connor, Daniel via samba: >>> Hi, >>> I have a Samba 4.11.8 system running as an AD and a file server and I am wondering what sort of ID mapping is done in this situation. >>> >>> I have uidNumber on each user set to use UIDs in the 1000 range but I find that they end up in the 3000000 range instead. >>> >>> Is this a fixable problem, or a result of having the file server and DC as the same machine? >>> >>> Thanks. >> On an DC the mapping starts allway with 3.000.000 you cant change it. >> That's the reason why you should not use a DC as fileserver > OK, it would be nice if that was documented. > > IMHO just saying "don't do it!" without providing the details of the downsides does make it difficult to make an informed decision about a deployment. >We do not say "don't do it", we just don't recommend doing it, for various reasons, some of which are listed here: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller#Using_the_Domain_Controller_as_a_File_Server Rowland
> On 3 Nov 2020, at 22:42, Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On 03/11/2020 12:05, O'Connor, Daniel via samba wrote: >> >>> On 3 Nov 2020, at 19:24, Stefan Kania via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>> Am 03.11.20 um 05:38 schrieb O'Connor, Daniel via samba: >>>> >>> On an DC the mapping starts allway with 3.000.000 you cant change it. >>> That's the reason why you should not use a DC as fileserver >> OK, it would be nice if that was documented. >> >> IMHO just saying "don't do it!" without providing the details of the downsides does make it difficult to make an informed decision about a deployment. >> > We do not say "don't do it", we just don't recommend doing it, for various reasons, some of which are listed here: > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller#Using_the_Domain_Controller_as_a_File_ServerNone of those are concrete problems, just "it may cause problems" without listing the actual problems. A short list of the big ones would be very helpful when deciding it's worth it - the listed alternative (run another instance in a VM) would have some very concrete downsides (mostly increased admin workload and potential confusion). Having something to weigh that against would make deciding a lot easier. -- Daniel O'Connor "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum