ntvfs vs s3fs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 11:07 +0100, Mike Howard wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 08:12, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >>> Samba 4.0 also ships with the 'NTVFS' file server.  This file server
> >>> is what was used in all previous alpha releases of Samba 4.0, and is
> >>> tuned to match the requirements of an AD domain controller. We
> >>> continue to support this, not only to provide continuity to
> >>> installations that have deployed it as part of an AD DC, but also as a
> >>> running example of the NT-FSA architecture we expect to move smbd to in
> >>> the longer term.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So if one is not intending to act as a files erver, purely an 
> >> authenticating dc (please excuse terminology), would you advise 
> >> running samba4 with the NTVFS file server?
> > Well if you don't use the Fileserver thing of the AD then why bother 
> > about which fileserver is used ?
> >
> > Matthieu.
> 
> I guess it was the comments in the release statement that made me ask 
> the question, specifically these two comments;
> 
> "This file server is what was used in all previous alpha releases of 
> Samba 4.0, and is tuned to match the requirements of an AD domain 
> controller."
> 
> "As mentioned above, this change to the default file server may cause 
> instability, as we learn about the real-world interactions between these 
> two key components.
> 
> The word 'tuned' in the first one and 'instability' in the second 
> attracting my attention. I suppose it's likely that even if data isn't 
> served by the dc, profiles may well be (in my scenario).

The warning is there for a reason - we have had issues with the new
s3fs, but we need to find them, not just ignore them, as the agreement
of the team is that this will be the default file server for the 4.0
release.

For example, we only just found and solved the issue where a blocking
fileserver.conf.pid would prevent a clean restart of Samba.  We are also
investigating to ensure the ACL model is indeed working as expected.

And the NTVFS file server has done us very, very well, and has generally
had no complaints from users.  This 'just works' aspect of Samba4 has
given users an incredible confidence in Samba 4.0 alphas, which is why
we need to caution users that we know these are rougher waters. 

But we simply don't have the resources to continue developing two file
servers, so we need anybody who is starting a new deployment to
persevere with the new default, if possible, so we can gain confidence
and remove these warnings.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org