similar to: Replication of Samba 4.8 DC to 4.19 ?

I hope that someone here can give some advice on the following: I have a Samba based Active Directory. A CentOS 7.6 machine runs as a file server and hosts the Windows user profiles for all the Windows workstations. Now management has decided that they need a Windows server for a couple of administrative applications, which need MS SQL Server. That would be the only role of this Windows.

>> Did you think to run 'samba-tool domain tombstones expunge --help' ? No, I didn't, I just assumed that the message "'samba' will remove them daily, 'samba-tool domain tombstones expunge' would do that immediately" would mean exactly that :-). It worked now. Thank you!

----- On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:35 AM, samba samba at lists.samba.org wrote: > > I wonder if this has anything to do with the 'you cannot upgrade > directly from 4.7.x to 4.9.x' bug ? I was not aware of this bug. Do you think I should scrap this upgrade and try again jumping like so? 4.0.6-12 -> 4.7 -> 4.8 -> 4.9 > I know this might seem strange, but try running

I am using Samba as Active Directory Domain Controller as well as file server, serving a network of Windows clients. I recently upgraded a bunch of computers from Windows 7 to Windows 10 release 1909. I just discovered that Under Windows 10, as a Domain Admin, when I try to add a new permission to a folder or file on Samba shares through the Advanced security tab I cannot do it because the

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:56:17 -0500 (CDT) Mike Ray <mray at xes-inc.com> wrote: > ----- On Mar 1, 2019, at 9:20 AM, Mike Ray mray at xes-inc.com wrote: > > > ----- On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:35 AM, samba samba at lists.samba.org > > wrote: > >> > >> I wonder if this has anything to do with the 'you cannot upgrade > >> directly from 4.7.x to

Oh! It's works. Thanks a lot. God bless you all. --- Gilberto Nunes Ferreira (47) 99676-7530 - Whatsapp / Telegram Em qui., 30 de mai. de 2024 ?s 10:40, miguel medalha <medalist at sapo.pt> escreveu: > For a GPO to work, both "Authenticated Users" and "Domain Computers" must > have "Read" rights. > > On a Policy Object, go to

> > Finally 'browseable' is redundant on a Samba AD DC, there is no > browsing on an AD DC. > Well, sometimes you just *have* to do some file serving out of an AD DC. It happened to me. In that case, if you don't have "browsable = yes" on a share, that share will not appear in the Computer Management applet in Windows and you won't be able to set its

> On 04 Jun 2016, at 22:14, Miguel Medalha <medalist at sapo.pt> wrote: > > >> Can someone therefore please explain to me what exactly these GPO >> restrictions are that Samba can't handle? I'd also appreciate if someone >> could list which other GPO I cannot set successfully using RSAT. > > It seems to me that the FAQ is pretty clear. The

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:32:01 +0100 "miguel medalha" <medalist at sapo.pt> wrote: > > >having a particular group > > > set as "Primary group" > > > How are setting the 'primary group' ? > > The 'primary group' had been set a long time ago, when the system was > created. It had been set with ADUC, under the

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:41:54 +0100 miguel medalha via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello > > In one of my DCs, when I run ./configure for Samba 4.9.0, it fails > with the following message: > > Checking for lmdb >= 0.9.16 via header check : not > found Samba AD DC and --enable-selftest requires lmdb 0.9.16 or later > > My ./configure command

Let me be the first (maybe): CentOS 5.2 is here (at least): http://mirror.chpc.utah.edu/pub/centos/5.2/ Thank you all who worked on it! -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1513 - Release Date: 22-06-2008 7:52

Has anyone found an ITSP that will relay T.38 fax to an asterisk 1.6.x instance AND do it reliably? If so, I can think of a number of locations with copper loops that could be scrapped. I'm actually quite surprised at what an underwhelming number of ITSP's that say they support T.38 (zero so far among my normal go-to companies). For locations that just want to be able to send

I was wondering, does Dovecot's IMAP server hand Outlook XP's contact lists? I tried to enter a contact on my IMAP server and received an error from Outlook stating that the Contacts formatting was too complex and thus couldn't be saved. I went ahead and swung my box over to MailDir and scrapped Sendmail for Postfix [for maildir support], I was wondering, would this issue continue? In

Mark Haney wrote: > On 09/07/2017 01:57 PM, hw wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> is there anything that speaks against putting a cyrus mail spool onto a >> btrfs subvolume? >> > I might be the lone voice on this, but I refuse to use btrfs for anything, much less a mail spool. I used it in production on DB and Web servers and fought corruption issues and scrubs

Is it safe to assume that a fresh CVS build will not have the SIP translation problem described? Regards, Christopher --__--__-- Message: 11 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:45:40 -0700 To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com From: "Ernest W. Lessenger" <ernest@oacys.com> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Is somthing broken? Reply-To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com At 12:33 PM 9/29/2003, you

> (...) By default a samba AD DC sets the login shell for all > Active Directory user accounts to /bin/false. The only way I've found to > change this, is to override that globally with the "template shell = > /bin/bash" option in smb.conf, which enables it globally for all Active > Directory users (probably not desired). Using RFC2307 you can give each user its own

> What I do think is, it isn't a good idea to create Samba shares with > spaces in the name, use an underscore instead. Why? I have been using shares with spaces in their names for years without running into problems even once. Windows fully supports it, so should and does Samba. In a business environment you NEED proper, human readable names, not ugly convoluted substitutes. Just

For a GPO to work, both "Authenticated Users" and "Domain Computers" must have "Read" rights. On a Policy Object, go to "Delegation/Advanced"" and set those rights accordingly.

I get problems with group policies not applied ... seems an older problem surfacing now. Before I debug at current level I consider upgrading the 2 DCs from 4.8.12 (Debian Stretch) to 4.9.9 Anything specific to consider here?

Hello all- I am trying to upgrade a old domain to a newer version. The old DCs are a custom compiled version of Samba, so instead of upgrading the DCs in place, the plan is to upgrade by joining new DCs to the domain, replicating data and then shutting down the old ones after transferring the FSMO roles. I had the new DC (dc3, version 4.9.4-12) replicating to the other DCs (dc0, versions