Which Samba - 3.0.x, 3.2 or 4.0?

Arup Biswas biswas_arup at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 21 01:30:05 GMT 2004


Thanks a lot for your time in replying to my question.
This would definitely encourage me to take a deeper
look at Samba4. I am sure I will have more questions
when I delve more into it. Just a short one for now - is
the Kerberos authentication part functional now?


>From: tridge at samba.org
>Reply-To: tridge at samba.org
>To: "Arup Biswas" <biswas_arup at hotmail.com>
>CC: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
>Subject: Re: Which Samba - 3.0.x, 3.2 or 4.0?
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:45 +1000
>  > - How long should I wait before I could  re-base to Samba 4.0?
>NAS vendors should start putting some effort into developing for
>Samba4 right now.
>One of the biggest things that Samba4 gives you is the ability to take
>full advantage of advanced filesystem features, so if your NAS product
>is capable of supporting file streams, ACLs, dos attributes, case
>insensitivity etc natively in the filesystem then it will be easy to
>take full advantage of those features in Samba4 by writing a NTVFS
>backend. In Samba3 it is quite difficult to properly (and efficiently)
>take advantage of these sorts of filesystem features.
>Please take a close look at source/ntvfs/posix/ to see an example
>NTVFS backend for Samba4. Then think about what additional filesystem
>features your NAS box could offer, and look at how those might be
>implemented in your own NTVFS backend.
>  > In other words, no printing support, we do not want to become 
>  > controller or WINS server, no user-group mapping
>  > support etc.
>Samba4 will extend the capabilities of Samba in just about every
>area. While a lot of effort has gone into the domain protocols
>recently, that isn't the only area that has improved. The original aim
>of Samba4 (see my talk at SambaXP 2 years ago) was to improve the
>basic file sharing structures, and that has certainly happened.
>Samba4 is still in development of course, and many pieces are not
>written yet. For example, the equivalent of nmbd and winbind don't
>exist yet, and neither does smbstatus, smbcontrol, swat and many other
>essentials. This means that Samba4 is not yet appropriate for
>production use. Please don't let that stop you getting involved in the
>development process now.
>Cheers, Tridge

More information about the samba-technical mailing list