Commit my stuff to 3.0?
AEsh at tricord.com
Mon Oct 14 15:20:01 GMT 2002
I have been working on a clustered storage product that uses Samba as one of
its interfaces. We dealt with some of the issues of ID mapping in a limited
The main concern we had was making sure all the nodes in the cluster would
have the same SID->UID mapping. Our solution was to use a hash algorithm
based on the RID. We used to upper range of the Unix UIDs, to avoid
collisions with pre-assigned UIDs in the customer's environment (because we
also integrate with NIS, and serve NFS). We also wrote a mapping system that
would match Windows users to Unix users, and map their SID to their
pre-assigned UID. The Windows user comment area could be filled in to give
the mapper a hint.
This gave us a system that could run independently on different nodes (Samba
servers), and would always map the same way. Since the file system is
clustered (looks the same no matter which node the user connects to), the
users get the same file service from any node. With IP virtualization, we
are able to load balance, redirecting users from NFS and Windows to any
The main drawback is: This system cannot fully support trusted domains.
Since the SID consumes too many bits, a reasonable hash could not be
developed which would avoid collisions among different Windows domains and
Unix IDs. We chose to map all users from trusted domains to a common UID.
This removes ownership, and security, but is still allows trusted domain
users to store files.
While considering solutions to the problems faced by the system, we came to
the conclusion that LDAP would be a big help. We also considered replacing
winbindd with a distributed database, possibly with our own LDAP interface
on it. Certainly, the ability to allocated UIDs internally in a sequential
manner would be the best solution, and mapping external information is
trivial. Distributing the mappings, and avoiding collisions is not easy to
do, without some sort of service.
My main goal is to make sure you don't forget that there may be a need for
more than one Samba server to use the exact same mappings.
Just thought I'd throw in what I've seen.
From: Andrew Bartlett [mailto:abartlet at samba.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:04 AM
To: Simo Sorce
Cc: Andrew Bartlett; Volker Lendecke; Samba Technical
Subject: Re: Commit my stuff to 3.0?
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 15:40, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Yep, that sounds worthwhile. We could even just make it a timeout - and
> > finally put gencache to use :-). (mimir's generalised tdb cache).
> We do **not** need timeouts!
> remember that sid->uid mapping is written in stone, once you have done
> it it cannot be changed _ever_.
Well I've got a funny feeling sombody will change these - and I can
think it would be a really nasty thing to track down for the admin.
Re-polling the server doesn't cost us much, but this is a minor matter.
> > > But to use ldap as a central storage you have to solve how to handle
> > > foreign or builtin/special SIDs!
> > Well, I was only looking at mapping our own domain - I was thinking the
> > rest should happend via winbind. However, it does make more sense that
> > this is all handled in one place. I think we can deal with this.
> if you want it to be fast, better it stay in one place.
Fine by me.
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the samba-technical