PDC acceptance criteria

[Gerald Carter]

Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> I don't think everyone will share those priorities.  

That's why I broght it up :-)

> 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.

Let me rephrase that then...Is PDC<->BDC integration with
NT server required?  Or can people just say this is a 
Samba domain.  It is a trivial thing to replicate a smbpasswd
among servers.  Once LDAP support is in place, we can
just point all samba servers in a domain to that.

My point about domain trusts is that the master 
domain / resource domain setup is quite common I think.
Maybe I'm wrong.

> 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.

See above comments.





Cheers, jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   /\  Gerald (Jerry) Carter                     Professional Services
 \/    http://www.valinux.com  VA Linux Systems    gcarter at valinux.com
       http://www.samba.org       SAMBA Team           jerry at samba.org
       http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~cartegw

       "...a hundred billion castaways looking for a home."
                                - Sting "Message in a Bottle" ( 1979 )