similar to: Internal DNS logging

no DNS server on that planet logs normal queries just because there si not enough disk space in most setups, there is not benefit log anything except erros and warnings for normal operations what is the problem you like to solve and if there is no problem why do you want logging normal operations? in other words: what do you try to solve except https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/DNS Am

On 11/4/2015 4:13 PM, John Gardeniers wrote: > Nobody? Surely somebody knows where Samba 4 logs its DNS queries, or > was this was a huge oversight and the internal DNS doesn't get logged > at all, as appears to be suggested by my utter failure to locate such > logs. > > On 28/10/15 14:28, John Gardeniers wrote: >> We're using the Sernet Samba v4.2.4 with

On 11/5/2015 10:30 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 05/11/15 15:18, James wrote: >> On 11/4/2015 4:13 PM, John Gardeniers wrote: >>> Nobody? Surely somebody knows where Samba 4 logs its DNS queries, or >>> was this was a huge oversight and the internal DNS doesn't get >>> logged at all, as appears to be suggested by my utter failure to >>> locate

Hello John, Am 04.11.2015 um 22:13 schrieb John Gardeniers: > Nobody? Surely somebody knows where Samba 4 logs its DNS queries, or was > this was a huge oversight and the internal DNS doesn't get logged at > all, as appears to be suggested by my utter failure to locate such logs. Samba doesn't log DNS queries. Patches are welcome. :-) Regards, Marc

On 04/11/15 22:02, John Gardeniers wrote: > Thanks Marc, > > That's a nice unambiguous answer, so I'll stop looking. > > I really doubt I'll be doing any coding on Samba, so it's kind of > unlikely I'll be supplying a patch. If I did create a patch it would > be to return to BIND flat files, so that the DNS can be made fully > functional again. >

Well that is not just an useless and unhelpful answer, it's also completely wrong and demonstrates a lack of knowledge and experience with DNS servers. On 05/11/15 08:21, Reindl Harald wrote: > no DNS server on that planet logs normal queries just because there si > not enough disk space in most setups, there is not benefit log > anything except erros and warnings for normal

The log file should not be in a different file? Like, smb-dns.log. This avoid increase of the log level and a lot of info not necessary to that analysis. Em 05/11/2015 14:42, James escreveu: > On 11/5/2015 10:30 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: >> On 05/11/15 15:18, James wrote: >>> On 11/4/2015 4:13 PM, John Gardeniers wrote: >>>> Nobody? Surely somebody knows where Samba

We're upgrading (Sernet) Samba 4.2 to 4.4. As recommended on this page: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Updating_Samba, I have upgraded one of out 2 DCs, the one that does not have any FSMO roles. We will spend the next week making sure everything works as expected. So far, so good. One thing I'm not clear on is whether I should move the FSMO roles to the upgraded DC before upgrading

Hi Andrew, I don't understand why 2 systems running the exact same version of Samba have different behaviour. Is this an option I can disable? regards, John On 19/04/16 11:29, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 10:29 +1000, John Gardeniers wrote: >> I'm setting up a test domain in order to try out Sudoers LDAP and >> have >> run into a problem that has

Code is like books, or art (painting...). Some guy produce something, as he likes, some others use/watch/listen it, as they like. Most of the time these two ways are different. What I mean is it is not because something was not developed to be used in some way that way of usage is not a good way of usage. Perhaps for most of us this is not the right way the OP want to do. Anyway it is his way.

Is it possible to have Samba4 internal DNS listen only on specific IP address(es)? We have 2 IP addresses on our DC and don't want the Samba4 DNS listening on one of them as it is to be used for an independent BIND DNS service. For those who may be wondering why, it's because Samba4's DNS doesn't do everything we want or need and using BIND_DLZ really isn't any better for

On the Samba wiki at https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_Internal_DNS there is the following: If you have chosen the internal DNS as backend for your environment, there are only two options that can be added to your smb.conf, to control the behaviour of DNS at this point: # Don't allow any updates | allow unsigned updates | only allow signed updates allow dns updates = False |

Hi, testparm -v | grep 'ldap serve' Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384) Processing section "[netlogon]" Processing section "[sysvol]" Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_ACTIVE_DIRECTORY_DC Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions ldap server require

IMHO: no real need to move FSMO before upgrading FSMO owner if no real load. FSMO are roles which make one DC different of others DC on one specific point (for each role). As long as you don't do something which requires FSMO role you won't use FSMO roles, so no matter. Things which triggers FSMO usage are modifying the schema (don't do that during upgrade), reaching RID pool limit on

ah yes.. that are the "limitation", but know limitations ( for us ) Rowland, this is something to add on the wiki. (here : https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/DNS_Administration ) ;-) Greetz, Louis >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens Yuriy Tabolin >Verzonden: woensdag 19 augustus 2015 11:35 >Aan: samba at

Has anyone here managed to get sudo working with Samba 4 AD users, using either ldap or sssd, with sssd preferred? If so, can you please point me in the direction of whatever instructions you used? It seems like there are a bunch of tutorials on the subject, each with different, and sometimes conflicting, information but none of those I've tried work for me. regards, John

Hi Rowland, I Upgraded from Samba 4.4.2 and we have tried the FQDN without success. regards, John On 21/11/16 08:02, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:42:30 +1100 > John Gardeniers via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Hi Louis, >> >> While it wasn't spelled out, it was firmly implied in my previous >> message that

Hi Rowland, Perhaps I misled you with my wording. Each user has just one email address, which was not migrated across. From where I'm sitting that looks like a very serious bug. regards, John On 31/08/15 19:07, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 31/08/15 07:27, John Gardeniers wrote: >> I've been running through a bunch of tests after migrating from >> Samba > 3 to Samba 4

Probably a ld issue. It might have not run in the rpm's post script. Do a ldd /usr/lib64/samba/libsmbregistry-samba4.so /usr/lib64/samba/vfs/acl_xattr.so and check if either are reporting missing dependencies. Em 07/02/2017 21:25, John Gardeniers via samba escreveu: > This is really weird. The error below occurred for about 10 minutes after the > post-update reboot and then went

Hi Klaus, I haven't used that tool for at least 13 years but I do recall that, among other things, it read from the registry. Coupled with the fact that Samba 4 AD is not a complete implementation of AD I can't imagine that it could possibly work. More to the point, I'd be seriously concerned about the results. This is not something I'm prepared to test in a production