similar to: File server and DC or just member

Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 06:40, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >> Kind of a whole set of general questions - pardon for one more, please! >> I've read some of the thinking behind not having a DC also be a file server. >> But it's not a "rule" - just a suggestion. >> But here's a wrinkle on things. >> In more than a few setups, I'll have

On 14/07/2020 06:40, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: > Kind of a whole set of general questions - pardon for one more, please! > > I've read some of the thinking behind not having a DC also be a file server. > But it's not a "rule" - just a suggestion. > > But here's a wrinkle on things. > In more than a few setups, I'll have DC's on VM's - and

So, I'm seeing some very odd behavior. I may have multiple issues - so I'm simply starting holding the thread of the problem and working my way back. So, the root symptom I'm having is that a GPO isn't applying correctly. [Roaming profiles namely.] I have two DC's. I change the GPO on one DC and rsync the update to the other DC. I can see that the files get updated. Yet when

So, some updates. I started that email a couple of hours ago - but suddenly, without changing a thing, the test client/station is suddenly now getting the correct GPO details. Yet, I've not synced the sysvol or done anything to change or update the GPO on either DC. See inline... RPvs> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:40:55 -0800 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>

>> Does this apply if, instead of an upgrade, one provisions a new DC >> on, say, 4.9 and joins it? In short, will this allow you to get your >> DCs to 4.9 by creating new DC's on 4.9, and then demote/remove all >> the 4.7 DC's after the new 4.9 DC's are synced etc? RPvs> I do not know, I personally never tried it, but even if it does work, RPvs> it

>> A substantial reason I'm not using debian/devuan is LTS support. RPvs> Debian has its own version of LTS: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS Yeah, I've seen that. Not a lot of faith in it though. It sounds a lot like "trust me, someone's going to do it." [I know, cheap, quick, well done - and I want all three. Sigh.] If they'd been doing it the last five years and

RPvs> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 10:35:17 -0800 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> I'm working to put up a production FeeeNAS box tied to Samba/AD for >> authentication for users connecting to the FreeNAS share(s). In >> joining FreeNAS to the AD domain, one immediately runs into >> "problems" with TLS/encryption. RPvs>

RPvs> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:17:33 -0800 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> So, some updates. >> I started that email a couple of hours ago - but suddenly, without >> changing a thing, the test client/station is suddenly now getting the >> correct GPO details. >> Yet, I've not synced the sysvol or done anything to

RPvs> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:06:52 -0800 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> RPvs> Have you read this: >> RPvs> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Roaming_Windows_User_Profiles >> RPvs> and possibly, this: >> RPvs> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Configuring_Windows_Profile_Folder_Redirections >> RPvs>

Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 17:25, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >> Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 16:51, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >>>> Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. >>>> So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." >>>> How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? >>

Rpvs> On 14/07/2020 16:51, Gregory Sloop via samba wrote: >> Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. >> So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." >> How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? Rpvs> Every 30 days, though this is adjustable, but not recommended >> [This is the one that is

Top posting: So, I do want the five years of LTS in 18.04. {I think - see below.] A substantial reason I'm not using debian/devuan is LTS support. I'm glad to be schooled in that regard, if someone has arguments to make. But I generally want to install a VM/Server/Box for a client and leave it alone as much as possible for as long as possible, and while it still works as initially

Yeah, I could setup an extra XCP box - but at smaller setups, it really seems like overkill. So, it sounds like restores of the VM work "fine." How often do machine accounts reset their passwords? [This is the one that is most likely to be problematic. Rejoining the domain means a new profile. And that's a big PITA on the client side.] User password changes can simply be handled by

RPvs> On Fri, 11 May 2018 07:14:38 -0700 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> So, I'm curious about the contrast between modifying netplan vs >> simply disabling systemd.resolved >> Is there some advantage to the gyrations to make netplan work, vs >> simply disabling resolved and manually defining the IP and DNS >>

So, there's been a fair bit of chatter on the list about upgrades failing. I haven't paid close attention, but IIRC, upgrading from 4.7 to 4.8 or 4.9 caused problems. So, just to clarify - this is an in-place upgrade that is failing, correct? Does this apply if, instead of an upgrade, one provisions a new DC on, say, 4.9 and joins it? In short, will this allow you to get your DCs to 4.9

RPvs> Have you read this: RPvs> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Roaming_Windows_User_Profiles RPvs> and possibly, this: RPvs> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Configuring_Windows_Profile_Folder_Redirections RPvs> Rowland Yes, and I believe I've done everything properly. That's where I started. So I think we're back to; What items control file/directory creation

So, I'm curious about the contrast between modifying netplan vs simply disabling systemd.resolved Is there some advantage to the gyrations to make netplan work, vs simply disabling resolved and manually defining the IP and DNS server? [I'm not complaining, I'm thankful for all the options - just wanting to have the best handle possible on the reasoning behind one method vs the other.]

I'm working to put up a production FeeeNAS box tied to Samba/AD for authentication for users connecting to the FreeNAS share(s). In joining FreeNAS to the AD domain, one immediately runs into "problems" with TLS/encryption. Samba, in the defaults requires TLS. I could disable TLS security in Samba, but that's probably not a great idea. So, I'll need a key/cert for the

See Inline LPHvBvs> Hi Gregory, LPHvBvs> On the questions. >> Is there a good reason to avoid Samba internal DNS? LPHvBvs> No, imo not, but i only use bind9_dlz because i need bind in my lan for other setups also. LPHvBvs> I just used my RSAT on my win7 64b, but at my point it works fine. LPHvBvs> I do have questions to get a better impression of the setup. LPHvBvs>

RPvs> On Mon, 21 May 2018 17:15:21 -0700 RPvs> Gregory Sloop via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> See Inline >> LPHvBvs> Hi Gregory, >> LPHvBvs> On the questions. >> >> Is there a good reason to avoid Samba internal DNS? >> LPHvBvs> No, imo not, but i only use bind9_dlz because i need bind in >> LPHvBvs> my lan for