similar to: Debugging Samba is a total PITA and this needs to improve

Hi Sven, Ok, before i back to my packaging, i reviewed the changes. You still missed a bit but it looks much better already, your completely there, but we will get there. And you really need to be more precise, why im telling that... Well the review. ( thats not all, im still reviewing the base only) ... https://up.tao.at/u/samba/graz-file.info2.txt Checking file:

On 22.05.19 15:31, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: > Hai, > > Well, good that your more relax and releaved in pressure.. > Apoligies accepted. ;-), i know the fealing but do understand, we are trying to help out.. > > As you know, it very frustration to ask the same things again, and you showing them again > But now as you showed with all the configs. It is needed.. (sorry)

Today's episode of "why is AD break", brought to you by: > [2017/09/05 10:17:06.015617, 3] ../source4/auth/gensec/gensec_gssapi.c:613(gensec_gssapi_update) > Server GC/graz-dc-1b.ad.tao.at/ad.tao.at is not registered with our KDC: Miscellaneous failure (see text): Server (GC/graz-dc-1b.ad.tao.at/ad.tao.at at AD.TAO.AT) unknown > [2017/09/05 10:17:06.015717, 0]

Situation: Trying to upgrade Samba from 4.1 to 4.5 without disruption too much by adding new DCs and demoting old ones. After bringing online the first 4.5 DC, I ran `demote --remove-other-dead-server=` on that DC to remove one of the old 4.1 DCs (held no FSMO roles). That seemed to run fine (the DC had been offline for a few weeks at that point and I didn't want to restore it just for

Hai Sven, > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Sven Schwedas [mailto:sven.schwedas at tao.at] > Verzonden: dinsdag 5 september 2017 17:13 > Aan: L.P.H. van Belle > CC: samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Server GC/name.dom/dom is not > registered with our KDC: Miscellaneous failure (see text): > Server (GC/name/dom at DOM) unknown > > On

Hai Sven, And still i see/think you should change some things to get a better base setup. And no its not bike shedding.... It is making a standard setup, work from there. [libdefaults] default_realm = AD.TAO.AT dns_lookup_realm = true < if you have multple REALM, else false. (default_realm = AD.TAO.AT) dns_lookup_kdc = true Checking file: /etc/nsswitch.conf passwd: files

On 2017-04-20 18:38, Rowland Penny wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:00:24 +0200 > Sven Schwedas via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> On 2017-04-07 13:44, Sven Schwedas via samba wrote: >>> In the end I just upgraded all DCs to 4.5 and remote-deleted the >>> broken ones. Seemed to work without a hitch, manual removal was >>> only necessary

On 2017-09-08 12:26, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:03:53 +0200 > "L.P.H. van Belle via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Thanks Rowland, >> >> Very appriciated. >> The dnsmasq servers are explained, these are no problem in his setup >> sofar i could tell/see. >> > Yes, but do the dnsmasq servers

On 2017-09-08 13:02, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:43:40 +0200 > Sven Schwedas via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> On 2017-09-08 12:26, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:03:53 +0200 >>> "L.P.H. van Belle via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>> >>>>

> Keytabs look reasonable, as far as I can see, but why does > graz-dc-sem have the same SPN output as graz-dc-1b in > addition to its own? A snapshotted server/cloned server? I dont know but thats not correct. I suggest, cleanup the DS with FSMO roles. Then remove a failty server and re-add it as a new installed DC. ( the good DS with FSMO) First backup:

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Sven Schwedas [mailto:sven.schwedas at tao.at] > Verzonden: vrijdag 8 september 2017 14:40 > Aan: L.P.H. van Belle; samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Server GC/name.dom/dom is not > registered with our KDC: Miscellaneous failure (see text): > Server (GC/name/dom at DOM) unknown > > On 2017-09-08 10:37, L.P.H.

Sven, Fist fix the smb.conf as i suggested, cap and non caps where it should be. Resolving settings based on the script output looks ok. Fix krb5.conf Then how many DC's are you having? > So, could somebody maybe help with the NT_STATUS_INTERNAL_DB_CORRUPTION > / DRS replication issue? Or will it be easier to just demote > the DC and provision a new one? Are all DC's

With some slight delay, we did actually manage to get all our old wonky compatibility solutions nuked (turned out there were a few more lurking in the shadows than expected?). Mail servers are no longer domain joined, and unencrypted LDAP is finally gone, together with the terrible PHP scripts that needed it. Which allowed me to finally cleanup all the samba setups:

Hai, > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens Sven > Schwedas via samba > Verzonden: dinsdag 21 mei 2019 16:44 > Aan: samba at lists.samba.org > Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Debugging Samba is a total PITA and > this needs to improve > > On 21.05.19 16:15, L.P.H. van Belle via samba wrote: > >> Since Cyrus

/etc/hostname:villach-file /etc/hosts:# The following lines are desirable for IPv6 capable hosts /etc/hosts:::1 localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback /etc/hosts:ff02::1 ip6-allnodes /etc/hosts:ff02::2 ip6-allrouters /etc/hosts:127.0.0.1 localhost /etc/hosts:192.168.16.214 villach-file /etc/krb5.conf:[libdefaults] /etc/krb5.conf: default_realm = AD.TAO.AT /etc/krb5.conf: dns_lookup_realm = true

Overall domain architecture hasn't changed since my spring cleanup post earlier (I did sort out the krb5 packages and logging settings, though). To start the migration, I figured I'd first update the file servers, since they're the least critical component. Upgrade 4.5 ? 4.8, 4.8 ? 4.9, 4.9 ? 4.10 seemed to work fine each step. However, SMB logins either with smbclient or with

Hi, >Are you using Bind9, if so, post your named.conf files (the ones from /etc/bind) No, I'm using DNS Internal. >Is winbind installed ? No, because the Samba tutorial said that for DC it was not necessary. Regards, M?rcio Bacci Em qui, 22 de ago de 2019 ?s 15:43, Rowland penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> escreveu: > On 22/08/2019 19:22, Marcio Demetrio Bacci

Hai guys, After a few messages on the list on Buster, i decided to upgrade one of my production AD-DC's and see what happens. If noticed a few things here, so here are the steps and changes i made to upgrade and have a correct working AD-DC after the upgrade. Setup is as followed: Debian Stretch AD-DC with Bind9 DLZ and ntp time. This is still the base i used for my AD-DC

On 03.07.19 17:19, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> All these object classes were tests we did? years ago, and which have >> been "deleted" (I don't even remember by what mechanism) for almost as >> long. No object should still be using any of these, and on graz-dc-sem >> that's true. > I would love to know how you deleted something from the schema, it

It's amazing how long Samba just keeps running even when apparently everything's broken. In preparation of finally upgrading our DCs to 41.0, I ran dbcheck on all of them, resulting in: graz-dc-sem: > Checking 3861 objects > Error: governsID CN=ucsUser,CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=ad,DC=tao,DC=at on 1.3.6.1.4.1.19414.3.2.2 already exists as an attributeId or governsId > Error: