redundant DNS setup with bind_dlz possible ?
mike at dewberryfields.co.uk
Mon Jun 4 06:26:02 MDT 2012
On 04/06/2012 11:50, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:01 +0100, Mike Howard wrote:
>> Well, I have to agree. IMHO, an AD environment is pretty much useless
>> without the ability to run a fully fledged backup domain controller
>> within it.
> All we can offer at this stage is what we have, I'm sorry. We hope to
> resolve the replication issues when we get a chance.
> We similarly have no support for replicating the contents of sysvol
> (FRS/DFR-R). However, many of our users still find what we have
I too find what you have useful and as I have stated before, very
impressive. I was purely responding to the OPs question (which was
snipped) with what is my opinion of what a beta should be. It was not
meant to be critical of the Samba4 effort, as that effort is very much
I did not intend to imply by my use of the term 'useless' that Samba4 is
useless, far from it. I was really talking about a 'high availability'
environment scenario and how without a BDC, an AD environment has a
single point of failure.
>> The Samba team are intending to progress to an internal dns server,
>> which makes sense. Not sure if a working (as in fully capable) DNS
>> environment will be included in the first beta, I doubt it from the
>> communications on the lists. I personally can't see how it can be called
>> 'beta' without a (fully fledged) BDC capability but as Andrew has said,
>> resources are limited and I guess they want to make progress.
> The Beta will not feature either a finished internal DNS server (it is
> missing secure updates at this point), nor a fix for this issue at this
> point. The beta is scheduled for tomorrow. We do hope to address the
> replication issue, but it affects the dlz_bind9 and internal servers
> equally (they read the same database).
I'll look forward to it.
Any question is easy if you know the answer!
More information about the samba-technical