upgrade reference
ssureshot
ssureshot at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 20:20:54 MST 2012
I completely understand, that will probably be a large difference but it
will also give me the chance to audit permissions so that may be a good
thing... I'm assuming that the shares are defined with the default,
something like the auto created netlogon dir.. then acl's take over..
feel free to post the largest share difference I'd like to see it just
to make sure..
On 01/12/2012 05:38 PM, Ricky Nance wrote:
> I don't know if I can explain this, but I will to the best of my
> knowledge, anyone else reading this please chime in if I am wrong or
> leave something out. The best way I can explain it is, all of the
> options you have in your current smb.conf are replaced on samba 4 by
> xattributes (acls?). That being said, you basically create the share
> with 2 or 3 lines, and change all the settings via the windows
> 'Security Settings' tab. There will be quite a bit of tweaking in some
> instances. If you'd like I can post my old and new config files so you
> can see the difference.
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2012 7:24 AM, "Aaron E." <ssureshot at gmail.com
> <mailto:ssureshot at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Ah IC,, that shouldn't be too big an issue, we use an include for
> our shares so it's all nice and neat. but Ill need to test all
> that with the special options that we have in place.. allowed
> users and such.. verify that all the options function and if not
> resolve
>
>
> On 01/11/2012 08:52 PM, Ricky Nance wrote:
>
> I should have been more specific on that, the share directives
> will have to
> be manually copied from the samba 3 smb.conf to samba 4
> smb.conf. From what
> I have seen, (on my own install) all my shares defaulted to
> read only =yes,
> I added read only = no to each share, though I am sure it
> would work inside
> the [global] section and take care of all the shares (someone
> correct this
> if its not right).
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Charles
> Tryon<charles.tryon at gmail.com
> <mailto:charles.tryon at gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> I'm actually planning on moving my shares to a FreeNAS
> box. Essentially
> that's running a Samba3 server joined to the Sanba4
> domain. FreeNAS just
> puts a nice GUI on the front of it.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Ricky Nance<
> ricky.nance at weaubleau.k12.mo.us
> <mailto:ricky.nance at weaubleau.k12.mo.us>> wrote:
>
> It should also be noted that all your shares will need
> to be migrated
> manually, and a lot of your old share options will not
> work. samba-tool
> testparm should be helpful at that point.
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Ricky Nance<
> ricky.nance at weaubleau.k12.mo.us
> <mailto:ricky.nance at weaubleau.k12.mo.us>> wrote:
>
> It needs to be on the same machine, when you issue
> samba-tool domain
> samba3upgrade --dbdir=/var/lib/samba
> --targetdir=/usr/local/samba
> /etc/samba/smb.conf the dbdir is the old s3 files,
> the target dir is
> where it should put the s4 database, and finally
> you have your old s3
> smb.conf file. Unless you want to see a BUNCH of
> output make sure
>
> logging
>
> is off in your s3 config.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Aaron
> E.<ssureshot at gmail.com
> <mailto:ssureshot at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> I am running debian based flavor. I have
> samba4 / bind 9.8 build on my
> test box working with a new provision which
> Ill blow away..
>
> Can it pull the information through a network
> or does everything have
>
> to
>
> be installed on the same server?
>
> Essentialy all I would need to do is get ldap
> and samba functioning and
> restore the database from my production box.
> Which shouldn't take too
>
> long
>
> but I would rather not have to install what I
> won't need. I'm anal
> retentive when it comes to installed packages
> in production..
>
>
>
>
> On 01/11/2012 02:47 PM, Charles Tryon wrote:
>
> I've had some success doing some test
> migrations, though I don't have
>
> all
>
> my pieces put together yet.
>
> Are you running on a Debian based system
> or a Red Hat (CentOS, Fedora,
> etc)
> based system? There are obviously some
> package differences, as well
>
> as
>
> startup script differences.
>
> I am actually trying to do the conversion
> from one server to another,
> which
> presents some different challenges. For
> one thing, I still have a
>
> load
>
> of
> other services on the old server that I
> can't get rid of right away.
> Also,
> that box is pretty suck on packages from
> several years ago, which is
>
> why
>
> it's still running Samba 3.0.9!!
>
> In my case, I do NOT have an LDAP server,
> so I am pulling from a tdb
> database for my users. I wouldn't say
> this is better or worse than
>
> LDAP,
>
> but it does mean you do things a little
> differently.
>
> I've found that I can copy my /etc/samba
> and /usr/lib/samba
>
> directories
>
> from my production server to the new test
> server and then run the
> conversion.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Aaron
> E.<ssureshot at gmail.com
> <mailto:ssureshot at gmail.com>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> I'm finally getting back to some testing
> now that EOY is over. The
>
> last
>
> I
> worked with upgrade testing was
> running the myldap.py upgrade
>
> script, I
>
> have seen that the samba-tool can now
> provide an upgrade path and I'd
> like
> to run some tests.
>
> I'm looking for information to read up
> on using this tool.
>
> I currently have an s3 domain with an
> openldap backend. When I run
> samba-tool ? I don't seem to see
> anything relevant to an upgrade.
>
> This
>
> is
> the latest git as of a week ago.
>
> Any reading material is greatly
> appriciated along with examples if
>
> you
>
> have them.
>
> Thanks
> Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> --
> Charles Tryon
> _________________________________________________________________________
> "It's the job that's never started that takes
> longest to finish."
> -- Samwise Gamgee
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list