default FILE SERVER change for EXISTING Samba4 installs (was Re: Is a 'flag day' OK for a move from ntvfs to s3fs by default?)
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
metze at samba.org
Thu Jun 14 06:27:13 MDT 2012
Am 14.06.2012 14:24, schrieb Jelmer Vernooij:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:54:12AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> Excuse the shouting, but if we decided not to do this, it is hard(er) to
>> go back, so I would appreciate some careful thought. (The alternative
>> isn't great either, and presumably would need to be maintained for some
>> On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 12:06 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> At the moment, for existing installations, Samba4 uses the ntvfs file
>>> server. These users seem keen to continue using it for the timebeing
>>> (rather than find the differences between the implementations the hard
>>> The new s3fs default has been put in place for new users by writing into
>>> the smb.conf the equivalent of this:
>>> server services = -smb +s3fs
>>> dcerpc endpoint servers = -winreg -srvsvc
>>> (actually more verbose, as the provision script expands it)
>>> However, for the Samba 4.0 release we really need to make it the real
>>> What I need to know is: Can we have a flag day, where for the next
>>> release we make it clear that users wishing to keep ntvfs have to add:
>>> server services = +smb -s3fs
>>> dcerpc endpoint servers = +winreg +srvsvc
>>> If not, then we need to work out a way to make this automatic. The
>>> obvious candidate would seem to be the 'server role' change I'm also
>>> proposing. It's ugly, but instead of being a synonym of 'active
>>> directory domain controller', we could make 'domain
>>> controller' (currently written into smb.conf files) mean 'AD DC with
>>> ntvfs' (and give a deprecation warning), possibly then overridden by any
>>> other 'server services' and 'dcerpc endpoint services' values set.
>>> What do folks think?
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> I haven't really involved in the file serving side of things much, so
> please excuse my ignorance..
> Having a flag day doesn't seem too bad; let's do it now rather than
> later. If we would still allow reverting back to the old behaviour by
> setting a few configuration options, even better.
> I guess one of the underlying questions also is: why would users want
> to stick to ntvfs at this point? Just the fact that it's been tested
> better with e.g. GPOs?
I'd say just change it with the push for the next beta.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the samba-technical