Should we keep the Samba4 LDAP backend?
oliver at itc.li
Sat Apr 2 06:19:04 MDT 2011
Am 02.04.2011 13:39, schrieb Kai Blin:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 2011-04-02 12:21, Oliver Liebel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>> - A DirSync-based "Single-Shot"/ Master-Slave - Replication Mech (e.g.
>> implemented as an Overlay for this Function)
>> could be a Solution for many Companys, that dont need permanent Sync
>> between ADS and S4/OL.
> This one actually surprises me as somebody who doesn't really deal with
> production set-ups. Isn't the whole point of S4 to have ADS support? Why
> wouldn't you want to keep ADS and S4 in sync, regardless of the LDAP
> backend used by S4?
> Confused greetings,
> - --
Thats not what i said.
Theres nothing wrong or unwanted between ADS - S4 sync.
The LDAP Backend _is_ the relevant Part. Many Enterprise-sized Companys
have OL already implemented as
Single Point of Administration, mostly high customized. They dont want
to change their
complete LDAP-Backend Infrastructure, in most cases they just want to
have a kind of working Sync
between their ADS and OL (or S4/OL).
More information about the samba-technical