PDC acceptance criteria
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.
More information about the samba-technical