search for: bridgeheads

...9;t aware of this. Thank you for the info. If I was to delete the >> incorrect respsFrom/repsTo attributes, wouldn't the KCC just >> regenerate them over time once the KCC check and ISTG check kicked in? > > As long as the topology doesn't change or DCs which are not > bridgeheads do not go offline, there should be basically zero > additional reps over time. How often they build up over time is an > open question (when DCs do go offline), I can't test every setup and > I'm sure there are edge cases. However if there are these additional > links for wh...

Hi Louis, Move up to 4.7 is planned soon but I'm little scared to update bridgehead if it actually had performance problem. I would like to fix all problem before updating. My smb.conf is really simple: [global] workgroup = PR realm = pr.educationetformation.fr netbios name = DC000 server role = active directory domain controller bind interfaces only

Hi everybody ! I am encountering performance problem on my bridgehead DC. I have 19 DC (Debian Stretch / Samba 4.6.7 from Tranquil.it repo) and they all synchronized on a main bridgehead DC. This performance problem first appears when the bridgehead DC was on Debian Jessie and kernel was updated with meltdown/spectre patch from Debian (3.16.51-3+deb8u1) I added "nopti" option to grub

Jessie also has the problem, even before the meltdown patches. The kernel 3.16.x had ksoftirqd probems, eating up cpu cicles. Make sure you use kernel 4.9.0-6 And i suggest move up to samba 4.7.x or 4.7.4 from debian/buster, Or use my 4.6.12/4.7.6 packages for stretch, or ask if Tranquil.it can make them. The 4.6.14 is still in the make atm for stretch, 4.6.14 for jessie is done. And last,

On 9/24/2016 7:32 AM, Denis Cardon wrote: > > the job of the samba_kcc script is to create the ntdsConnection > objects. Afterward the repsFrom/repsTo attribute are created in > accordance with the ntdsConnection objects (you can force the creation > using samba-tool drs replicate although). You can check that the > process is asynchronous when you join a new DC, the INBOUND

On Thu, 17 May 2018 18:01:48 -0300 Carlos <carlos.hollow at gmail.com> wrote: > I dont have DC4... > But, i shutdown DC1(manutenção) > i created user in DC2, this user doesn't exist in DC3, never > replication... is not problem? > > Regards... > > On 17-05-2018 17:49, Rowland Penny wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:37:28 -0300 > > Carlos

On 23/09/16 00:59, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: > For clarification I'll add a few things. > > I initially deleted all the NTDS site links for each site and allowed > the new KCC to create them. However it did not create them I believe > correctly. By that I mean it defined what appeared to be a bridgehead > server at each site. So I disabled the new KCC >

Everyone, Progress was slow today. I started out well, but then I ran into Documentation.htm. Progress slowed considerably, as I analyzed the document structure. I''m up to /etc/shorewall/hosts Configuration. I hope to finish Documentation.xml by tomorrow evening. Converted documents: 6to4.xml CorpNetwork.xml FAQ.xml Please post feedback, if you see any problems with the converted

On 9/21/2016 11:32 PM, Garming Sam wrote: > I would have assumed that deleting all the NTDS connections for all the > DCs would have remedied this issue. I'll write a patch to try to avoid > this error in any case. > > Ignoring this error and answering your earlier question, it's often hard > to tell if the KCC is doing what is expected or not. To figure that out, >

> > Wasn't aware of this. Thank you for the info. If I was to delete the > incorrect respsFrom/repsTo attributes, wouldn't the KCC just > regenerate them over time once the KCC check and ISTG check kicked in? As long as the topology doesn't change or DCs which are not bridgeheads do not go offline, there should be basically zero additional reps over time. How often they build up over time is an open question (when DCs do go offline), I can't test every setup and I'm sure there are edge cases. However if there are these additional links for when you have spurious...

Thank  very much you for the explanations!! I'm sorry for one more question... What is wrong in DCs in mode " full mesh topology" ? I don't understand why not... Regards; On 17-05-2018 18:30, Rowland Penny wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2018 18:01:48 -0300 > Carlos <carlos.hollow at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I dont have DC4... >> But, i shutdown DC1(manutenção)

On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:37:28 -0300 Carlos <carlos.hollow at gmail.com> wrote: > Matriz site Filial site > DC1 -------(OPENVPN)-------- DC3 > | > | > DC2 > > DC1 -> DC2 = OK > DC1 -> DC3 = OK > > DC2 -> DC1 = OK > DC2 -> DC3 = NO > > DC3 -> DC1 = OK > DC3 -> DC2 =

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 08:24:45PM -0700, Peter Moody wrote: > I wrote something a lot like this when I was at uber > > https://github.com/pmoody-/pam-ussh > > (the uber version is here: https://github.com/uber/pam-ussh) Needing PAM auth via ssh-agent is not so uncommon and yet using sshd is not necessarily the first (or best) solution to come to mind. Having it available as

On 9/22/2016 6:31 PM, Garming Sam wrote: > On 23/09/16 00:59, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: >> For clarification I'll add a few things. >> >> I initially deleted all the NTDS site links for each site and allowed >> the new KCC to create them. However it did not create them I believe >> correctly. By that I mean it defined what appeared to be a bridgehead

Hi everybody, I'm playing with the new Improved KCC of samba 4.3.X Here is my network's topology : - DC : smb4dc located on Default-First-site-Name - DC : dc110 located on PetitQuevilly - DC : dc113 located on SaintEtienne - DC : dc120 located on Barentin - Etc.... (total of 15 DC) I want smb4dc acting as a bridge head for all others

On 2016-09-24 06:53, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: > On 9/22/2016 6:31 PM, Garming Sam wrote: >> On 23/09/16 00:59, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: >>> For clarification I'll add a few things. >>> >>> I initially deleted all the NTDS site links for each site and allowed >>> the new KCC to create them. However it did not create them I believe

Hello, I have 3 sites with 2 DC's each. (1)-------(2)-------(3) connected by wan links. I have created using ADSS tool. Subnets, Inter-Site Transports via. IP and 2 other sites. Left the initial site as Default-First-Site-Name. It appears the KCC continues to automatically configure replication links to all DC's in all sites. I would like to limit replication from Site 1 to

On 9/18/2016 6:23 PM, Garming Sam wrote: > Hi, > > For the unsorted attributeID values errors, can you first try: > > samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs --fix --yes 'fix_replmetadata_unsorted_attid' > > There's too much going on, and it does look like it might be bailing > out. Running it with 'fix_replmetadata_unsorted_attid' should fix those > first

Hi, Do you have some link to explain what are the difference between new and old KCC? Is it the old one do not respect "NTDS Settings" links in "Active Directory Sites and Services" console and force replication between every DC? If yes new KCC would rely on what is defined into each server's "NTDS Settings", is it? 2016-11-18 17:01 GMT+01:00 lingpanda101 via

Hi, The main (and probably the only) use case of this PAM module is to let sudo authenticate users via their ssh-agent, therefore without having to type any password and without being tempted to use the NOPASSWD sudo option for such convenience. The principle is originally implemented by an existing module [0][1] and many pages that explain how to use it for such purpose can be found online.