similar to: Samba ADDC server migration

Hi Rowland. slave in my description mens backup addc, both of them. I use one addc as a master and second two servers are connected to this master addc. So any changes or GPO settings I make at master and they are propagate to slaves. smb.conf at master addc: # Global parameters [global] dns forwarder = 10.1.1.225 netbios name = ADDC1 realm = DOMAIN.COMM server

On Thu, 15 May 2025 10:31:46 +0200 ladas via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi everybody. > > I would like to ask for your advice. I use old samba addc server and > two slave nodes synced by rsync ( one as a backup, second one at > small company branch ) Before we get deeply involved here, can you please explain just what you mean by 'slave node' and what

Hai Gregory,   No problem, now netplan, but i cant tell you much about netplan out of experiance, i've never used it. But what is it exact you want to know?? The how and why i configure like this is already a bit explained.   about this part: > So, I'm curious about the contrast between modifying netplan vs simply disabling systemd.resolved   But I did a bit reading.

Hello, i have a server with samba 4.1 as ADDC and I want to virtualize. I would like to know how I can migrate my current Samba 4.1 domain controller to the virtual server or if is better create a new Domain Controller virtualized as shown in the wiki and then turn off the primary ADDC. https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Join_an_additional_Samba_DC_to_an_existing_Active_Directory Let me know that

Il giorno mer, 26/04/2017 alle 07.27 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba ha scritto: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:55:16 +0200 > Dario Lesca via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > Your problem is that you need to find out just who dhcpd runs as on > fedora. On Devuan it is root and everything just works. Yes, on Debian work. And with this patch: [root at fedora-addc ~]#

Legalizer will expand arithmetics using addc and adde. Is it not working for you? It works fine on x86, you can take a look how it's done. Evan On Sep 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply > definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out > the > magic. Here's

Hai, And yes, i can confirm that Rowland is correct about my point of view. I'll also explain a bit why so people can understand my thoughts. I install a server as minimal as possible, yes, you might miss some packages, but you can install these after the base setup. The Why is, This saves a lot of space, unneeded updates/upgrade of packages you dont use and it results in a more stable

I have setup a ADDC Samba server and a winbind member server I have see that same user have UID/GID different from ADDC and member server # Addc (Fedora 29)[root at s-addc ~]# id d.lescauid=3000023(DOM\d.lesca) gid=100(users) gruppi=100(users),3000023(DOM\d.lesca),3000009(BUILTIN\users)[ root at s-addc ~]# rpm -q sambasamba-4.9.2-0.fc29.x86_64 # Member (Centos7)[root at s-dati ~]# id

On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: > For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense > to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on targets where they aren't legal.  Targets which custom-lower ADDCARRY generally also custom-lower UADDO; not sure what sort of expansion

On 5/30/2018 1:16 PM, Friedman, Eli wrote: > On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >> For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense >> to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? > > SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on targets where they aren't > legal.  Targets which custom-lower

> > I love diving : ) > Ok mathias, Can you explain this. This i dont get.... Why is this output so different, and i dont mean the difference with NTDOMAIN\.. See the groups differences... between a ADDC and a member server.. Samba 4.4.3 ADDC id someusername uid=10002(NTDOMAIN\someusername) gid=10000(NTDOMAIN\domain users) groups=10000(NTDOMAIN\domain

My target doesn't support 64 bit arithmetic, so I'd like to supply definitions for adde/addc. The problem is I can't seem to figure out the magic. Here's an example of what I need to generate: # two i64s in r5/r6 and r7/r8 # result in r1/r2, carry in r3 # adde add r2, r6, r8 cmpltu r3, r2, r6 # compute carry # addc add r1, r5, r7 add r1, zero, r3 Is this

Evan Cheng wrote: > Legalizer will expand arithmetics using addc and adde. Is it not > working for you? It works fine on x86, you can take a look how it's > done. > > Evan The x86 has a carry bit, my target doesn't. It's not clear to me how I would specify the use of a general purpose register to contain the calculated carry in the current adde/addc scheme.

Hai eveyone.   I know about the dns "things" in the past. DNS Islanding problems etc. This one is a bit hijacking the subject : “Horrible BIND9_DLZ DNS breakage after DC replaced and samba-tool domain demote --remove-other-dead-server”     I would like to suggest a smale change in how we suggest to setup samba ADDC dns things, and i do think this help in the setup of the AD

For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? Are there plans to deprecate UADDO/USUBO in favor of ADDCARRY/SUBCARRY? -Krzysztof On 5/30/2018 11:57 AM, Amaury Séchet via llvm-dev wrote: > These opcodes have been deprecated about a year ago, but still in use in > various backend. > > In

How to achieve DLZ for ADDC with bind9.12.x?? I have it working with 9.11 but for 9.12? dlz "AD DNS Zone" { # For BIND 9.8.x # database "dlopen /usr/lib/samba/bind9/dlz_bind9.so"; # For BIND 9.9.x # database "dlopen /usr/lib/samba/bind9/dlz_bind9_9.so"; # For BIND 9.10.x # database "dlopen

Il giorno mar, 25/04/2017 alle 14.36 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba ha scritto: > > However I would like to enable also the DHCP service, and think > > it's right to activate it on this server. > > > > What is the best way to do so? > > Well you could always do it the way I have been doing it for the last > 5 years, see here: > >

Hello, ldbsearch -H .... fails with a message that samba_dsdb is not found and LDB_MODULES_PATH needs to be set. Fixing it temporarily with: export LDB_MODULES_PATH=/usr/lib64/samba/ldb allows ldbseach command to work. Is it critical for ADDC operation though? [root at feddc ~]# rpm -q samba libldb ldb-tools samba-dc samba-4.7.0-12.fc27.x86_64 libldb-1.2.2-1.fc27.x86_64

I'm setting up a small dental office with smartcard authentication for their computers for convenience, security, and meet HIPAA requirements for tracking logins. I'm using a samba Active Directory setup because at this point, spending $1000 on a copy of the latest Windows Server isn't an option. I'm am currently on my 4th attempt at it. Previously, I was compiling it from

I have a functional pair of computers, one running a DC and the other running as a member server providing storage for the W7 clients. Within the member server, many directories have modified ACL settings to share among W7 client/ADDC users. I would like to backup the member server and protect the ACL and extend attr file permissions. Rsync will do this with "-A" and "-X"