Should we keep the Samba4 LDAP backend?

Kai Blin kai at
Sat Apr 2 14:16:40 MDT 2011

On 2011-04-02 14:19, Oliver Liebel wrote:

Hi Oliver,

> Thats not what i said.
> Theres nothing wrong or unwanted between ADS - S4 sync.

Ok, so here's what caused my confusion. I don't make a distinction
between ADS and S4. To me, S4 is ADS. So naturally if you run a S4 DC,
that will sync with other AD DCs. But I don't consider S4 a special case.

> 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).

Ok, same thing. I don't think S4 is designed to solve this problem.
Coming from the side where there's already an AD DC running, I see S4 as
an additional DC, not as a way to add a point of replication to another
directory server.


Kai Blin
Worldforge developer
Wine developer
Samba team member

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list