PDC acceptance criteria

Steve Langasek vorlon at netexpress.net
Tue Oct 3 18:43:32 GMT 2000

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 gcarter at valinux.com wrote:

> That is the intent.  We need to decide what needs to 
> be done.  I want a list.   The phrase a "Working PDC" 
> is too vague.  What constitues a working PDC?  That's 
> the question.

> Do people think that trust relationships are required?
> What about PDC <-> BDC integration?  My feeling is 
> that the former is important while the latter is not.
> Why do i prioritize it like this?  I think that being 
> able to interact with other domain is more important than
> interacting with another DC within as domain.  

I don't think everyone will share those priorities.  Inter-domain trust
relationships are nice, but there are many people who *need* PDC->BDC
replication before they can sell this to their supervisors, because a
solution without built-in redundancy would be unacceptable.  Moreover, it
would give Samba-as-PDC a bad name right off the bat if people start having
reliability problems -- even if the problems aren't directly the fault of
Samba, the fact that a Samba PDC can't be deployed with the same degree of
redundancy as an NT PDC is bound to earn poor marks.

> I do think it is important that Samba has the 
> ability to be fault tolerant (or fail over capabilities).
> This is easy though when you are dealing with Samba
> multiple Samba servers.  Where does the effort need 
> to be focused.

I think PDC->BDC replication a la NT would be ideal; but I think at a minimum
there needs to be /some/ prepackaged failover solution available, whether it's
Samba-specific or not.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

More information about the samba-technical mailing list