Samba scalability?

[Gerald Carter]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Kevin Colby wrote:

> Shawn Wright wrote:
> > 1. Lack of ACL support
>
> This is a big issue for us too.  Without full ACLs per file, we
> simply cannot replace certain NT systems, and I haven't seen much
> for Linux ACLs yet.  Of course, this is a Linux shortcoming, not
> a Samba issue.

ACL support will be in Samba 2.2.  See
http://www.samba.org/samba/development.html for a general roadmap of
releases.

> > 3. Backups - We currently use BackupExec 6.5 on an NT server
> > to backup all servers. Are there any issues relating to backups
> > using samba?
>
> I think there are issues related to BackupExec + Samba.
> BackupExec, unlike any serious backup system, is only capable
> of tracking file changes via the DOS archive bit.  Thus, backup
> of a *nix system via Samba may not be able to do incrementals.
> We have tried these products together in the past without much
> success, and will soon be dropping BackupExec entirely anyway.
> Anyone had much success with this?

Problems in general of UNIX backups of NT clients is lack of understanding
things like NTFS streams (hints...EFS is implemented using streams)

> With winbind now, this is pretty good.  The biggest shortcoming
> is the lack of ACL support in many *nix OSes currently.

Seems like most of the major players have ACL support now.
Which one(s) are you referring to?





Cheers, jerry