similar to: Samba4 AD/DC and Virtual Machines?

On Wed, February 8, 2017 10:40, James B. Byrne wrote: > > Samba43 was installed on FreeBSD-10.3 as a binary package using the > pkg utility. Other than ignorance I had no problems with provisioning > a Domain with it. On the other hand Samba44 could not be successfully > provisioned at the time I was setting Samba up which is why we went > with Samba43. > > The ports

I am familiar with the contents of https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_%26_Windows_Profiles#Profile_share_using_POSIX_ACLs. Reading that given my set up (Samba-4.4.3_1 on FreeBSD10.3 and ZFS); and given that smbd -b | grep HAVE_LIBACL produces nothing; I infer that setting up roaming profiles using Windows ACLs are not going to work. I am correct? Which implies that I will have to use the

On Tue, February 7, 2017 14:29, Alnis Morics wrote: > May I ask an off-topic question? > > James, does saying "samba43" mean you installed this FreeBSD port or > package? Which is known to crash during provisioning as DC. Did you > find the solution to that issue? > Samba43 was installed on FreeBSD-10.3 as a binary package using the pkg utility. Other than ignorance I

On Wed, April 19, 2017 16:22, Chris Murphy wrote: > > Apple has had massively disruptive changes on OS X and iOS. Windows > has had a fairly disruptive set of changes in Windows 10. About the > only things that don't change are industrial OS's. > I have no idea how this reference applies to my earlier post. We do not use Apple or Windows servers and the desktop

Hi James, Simply remove the GATEWAY line from the eth0:192 interface config :D Then you'll had only one default gateway. And the source IP to all unknown address will be the routeable one. Att., Antonio. ----- "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> escreveu: > De: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> > Para: centos at

CentOS-6.5 i86_64 qemu-kvm-0.12.1.2-2.415.el6_5.4 MS-Windows v7proSP1 We have installed a MicroSoft Win7 system as a guest and have joined it to our MS AD domain. The system runs and has internet access. However, the IPv4 address it obtains and the gateway it is assigned are both sourced from the virtual machine host system and not from our AD DC DHCP server. To clarify, the virbr0 IP address

On Wed, June 3, 2020 10:52, Rowland penny wrote: > On 03/06/2020 15:31, James B. Byrne wrote: >> >> samba-tool dns query localhost brockley.harte-lyne.ca brockley.harte-lyne.ca >> ALL -U administrator >> Password for [BROCKLEY\administrator]: >> Name=, Records=3, Children=0 >> SOA: serial=1, refresh=900, retry=600, expire=86400, minttl=3600, >>

Hai James,   >I deliberately switched the PROFILES share with the USERS share in order to >test whether or not there was something obviously wrong with either the >share definition or the permissions.  I understand that one must first >press on the ok button to trigger the event.   For a USER Home dir yes, but profiles no. You can do that but that wont help much. Pressing OK

As you can probably guess by now I am working my way down through my outstanding issue list trying to get as many deferred items closed out as I can before the next security storm hits. We have a Win7pro KVM guest that has been giving us networking issues since it was created. The last problem was that it was picking up its network address from the virtio DHCP service, with predicable results.

On Mon, August 24, 2020 13:51 +0000, Rowland penny wrote: > It isn't a PDC, that is something quite different ;-) > I know, but it is a lot shorter to write than the DC possessing the PDC FSMO role. > It is your first DC. Not really, I have been working with MS AD Domains since NT 3.51, or whatever it was called back then. This one just happens to be the one I am currently

On Sat, October 14, 2017 14:33, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > I remain ever thankful to those who are willing to test new Samba > versions, particularly Samba release candidates. > We have a FreeBSD-11 BHyve virtual machine spun up and awaiting a working SAMBA past v4.3+ to trial. So whenever this port gets to the point of requiring FreeBSD testers just drop me a note. -- ***

CentOS-6.6 We have a host that has multiple IPv4 addresses aliased to eth0. The primary address is 216.185.71.x and the alias is 192.168.6.x. This host connects to devices on both netblocks without problems. Only default routing is used and it looks like this: #ip route 192.168.6.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.6.x 216.185.71.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src

I am seeing log file entries like this: IN=eth0 OUT=eth1 SRC=109.74.193.253 DST=x.y.z.34 LEN=122 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=48 ID=49692 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=3 CODE=3 [SRC=x.y.z.34 DST=109.74.193.253 LEN=94 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=53 ID=41330 PROTO=UDP SPT=34679 DPT=53 LEN=74 ] This is found on our gateway host. eth0 is the WAN i/f, eth1 is the LAN i/f. Our netblock is x.y.z.0/24. Can somebody tell me

On our existing samba43 installation I see this: ll -d /var/samba4/BROCKLEY-2016/USERS/ drwxrwx---+ 21 root BROCKLEY-2016\domain admins 512 Feb 14 08:43 /var/samba4/BROCKLEY-2016/USERS/ ll -d /var/samba4/BROCKLEY/USERS/ drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 3 Jun 11 14:32 /var/samba4/BROCKLEY/USERS/ I have read

On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:33 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > When a vendor ... fundamentally changes the way the administration > of an operating system is presented I?ve gotten the sense from this other part of the thread that the answer to my question, ?What are you moving to?? is FreeBSD. If you think FreeBSD system administration hasn?t changed over the

Dear all, This is the tested config : - debian squeeze 32bits (samba 3.5.6 / cups 1.4.4) - 1 PC Win7Pro 32bits - 1 PC Win7Pro 64bits - 1 PC WinXP Pro 32bits - 1 network printer with ps drivers (32bits and 64bits, same driver whether XP or 7) Setting up a network printer from the Windows 7 Pro clients with user root does not work : - first error when selecting the 64bits driver from the Win7Pro

I have introduced some error in my dns resolution and I would like some help fixing it as I cannot seem to detect what I have done wrong. Briefly the setup is this: name servers: DNS01 - 216.185.71.33 DNS02 - 209.47.176.33 DNS03 - 216.185.71.34 DNS04 - 209.47.176.34 - offline DNS01 is a master DNS02-04 are slaves of 216.185.71.33 All are listed as authoritative for the zone test.com The

This problem has several elements but it did not evidence itself until we moved from a MicroSoft AD-DC to a Samba AD-DC. The environment is is a FreeBSD-10.3 Bhyve VM hosted on a 16 core host also running FreeBSD-10.3. The version of Samba is 4.3.11 obtained through FreeBSD ports. The AD clients are all running MSWin7pro patched up-to-date. Roaming profiles are in use. We have an intermittent

Reply cross-posted to FreeBSD list. On Fri, July 15, 2016 09:31, James B. Byrne wrote: > I have created a Samab AD-DC on a FreeBSZD-10.3 host. The setup > checks out and I am able to join the domain from a Win7 workstation > and run the ADUC management console in RAST. I have opened the UNIX > Attributed properties tab for "Domain Admins" in the ADUC and set the > unix

I am experimenting with Asterisk having downloaded and installed the FreePBX i386 CentOS-6.3 based distro and updated it. The current package level on this system is: asterisk11-11.3.0-49_centos6 freepbx-2.11.0beta2-112 I am using twinkle-1.4.2-7.el6 as a softphone testing tool. There is no firewall on the asterisk host and SELinux is disabled on it. Fail2Ban is installed but I have made no