[Samba] About NAS versus Samba
L.P.H. van Belle
belle at bazuin.nl
Fri Jul 12 00:53:15 MDT 2013
quote:
I'm evaluating replacing some Linux file server for a NAS
>product, but
>>>> all them make me nervous when the vendor talks about
>"Active Directory
>>>> support" and nothing else.
Its simple, this is a BAD thing tot do.
But if you really want a nas.
Get a synology.
The best you can get, is my experiance.
http://www.synology.com/index.php?lang=default
or
Just get a pc with 2 harddisks and install.
http://www.freenas.org/
or if you want a ready setup for samba4 .
get the sernet samba4 appliance.
http://www.enterprisesamba.com/samba4app/
My advice, get or the synoligy of the samba4 app.
personaly, get the samba4 appliance.
get zarafa, and you have about the samba as Windows + exchange
Im running samba 3 with zarafa now, and im in the process of upgradeing to samba4.
Good luck.
Louis
>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: jimpotter at orange.net
>[mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens Jim Potter
>Verzonden: vrijdag 12 juli 2013 8:44
>Aan: samba at lists.samba.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] About NAS versus Samba
>
>I use a Netgear readynas1500 as a fileserver for my Samba3/ldap domain
>which I' ve just upgraded to AD and it works fine in both
>cases (lots of
>users, though with relatively few active connections). It runs a bog
>standard Samba3 + winbind member server (NT or ADS) as far as
>I can tell.
>
>Having said that, the 2 shortcomings I have found are with windows 7
>clients... troubles doing offline files (there are bunch of tweaks,
>but none work perfectly) and it doesnt work too well with the
>libraries
>feature in win7 (it needs indexing o some sort that isn't povided by
>samba I think)
>
>BTW, would a Samba4 member server setup help with these issues? If it
>did, I'd upgrade even if it did invaidate warranty...
>
>cheers
>
>Jim
>
>On 11/07/2013 05:03, fernando at lozano.eti.br wrote:
>> Hi Cris,
>>
>>>> Hi there, Has anyone tried to configure a NAS server to
>authenticate
>>>> users using a Samba PDC, or even a Samba4 DC
>(AD-compatible) or an IPA
>>>> server?
>>>
>>> not in a while, but I have done a samba 3 DC
>>
>> This was not my question. I'm ok running samba 3 DCs. :-)
>>
>> Have you ever configured a NAS so it would authenticate users from
>> your Samba DC and them serve SMB file shares (aka network drives) to
>> Windows desktops?
>>
>>
>>>> I'm evaluating replacing some Linux file server for a NAS
>product, but
>>>> all them make me nervous when the vendor talks about
>"Active Directory
>>>> support" and nothing else.
>>>
>>> if 3rd party support is your concern, why are you using fedora
>>> instead of
>>> RHEL?
>>
>> Are you trying to sell me RHEL subscriptions or help me with my
>> question? ;-) Anything wrong about asking about Fedora on a Fedora
>> list, or any server issue is forbidden for Fedora users? ;-)
>>
>> AFAIK it shouldn't matter, from a technical perspective, if
>the samba
>> DC runs Fedora, Debian, Slackware, RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu, Solaris,
>> whatever. I am not talking about OS level FC drivers or iSCSI
>> initiators. Either a NAS will be compatible with Samba3,
>Samba4, both
>> or neither. This depends on the SMB and MSRPC features needed by the
>> NAS, all them application level protocols, not kernel
>modules. If I'll
>> need Red Hat support for managing this system is another, unrelated,
>> question.
>>
>> If the NAS vendors state they su???port RHEL, that's not que
>question
>> either, as supporting RHEL could mean the RHEL linux kernel
>smbfs and
>> cifsfs driver talks to the NAS, not the NAS talks to the
>Samba DC. Or
>> else, RHEL support may mean just that the NAS talks NFS and
>so a RHEL
>> machine can mount volumes from tne NAS. That's not what I want.
>>
>> Most times I see linux servers they are simply members of a MSAD
>> domain, not the DC themselves. But mine are. All vendors I talked to
>> assume MSAD, and don't know about Samba. :-(
>>
>> Anyway Fedora is my desktop system and development
>workstation. The DC
>> in question runs RHEL. But if this works I can try someday using
>> Fedora or CentOS with the same (or other) NAS.
>>
>>
>>>>> In theory, many NASes are Linux boxes running samba, so there
>>>> shouldn't be a problem, except if the web admin interface
>won't support
>>>> a samba DC setup and I won't have SSH access to configure
>the NAS samba
>>>> myself
>>>>
>>>
>>> a cheaper nas will probably use samba, but not all NASs do.
>there are
>>> several commercial SMB/CIFS implementation out there.
>>
>> At least iomega/lenovo/emc state their NAS runs Samba. And a lot of
>> less know vendors also. I'll buy a single, cheap NAS, not a high end
>> EMC rack full of boxes. :-)
>>
>> But... will any NAS you know work with a Samba DC, or else, using an
>> IPA server? Or will they only work with Microsoft Windows Server AD?
>>
>> All vendors I contacted talk only about MS Active Directory. They
>> don't even know about NT4-style domains, which would mean a
>Samba3 DC
>> should work. Besides, AFAIK a Samba4 DC isn't supported by
>RHEL at all
>> -- that's why I included IPA in my question -- I'd have to
>use Sernet
>> packages for Samba4. Even then, Samba4 is very new, I don't
>know if a
>> NAS implementation would accept it in place of a MSAD DC.
>>
>> Most vendors talk to me about vmware, exchange and sql
>server support.
>> They offer me windows-only backup servers and the like. Some even
>> offer me SAP R/3 agents, while my ERP is another one. They can only
>> follow their standard script for windows shops. So I ask for the
>> collective knowledge from the Fedora and Samba lists... can anyone
>> tell me "I tried this NAS and it worked"? Or should I better forget
>> about this and keep using cheap intel boxes as file servers?
>>
>> Am I the first linux sysadmin in the world who's considering
>to have a
>> NAS replacing some file servers but keeping his samba DCs?
>>
>>
>> []s, Fernando Lozano
>>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>
More information about the samba
mailing list