Windows 2000 support
schulz at adi.com
Mon Apr 11 17:44:10 UTC 2016
> On 11/04/16 17:04, Thomas Schulz wrote:
>>> On 08/04/16 18:52, Thomas Schulz wrote:
>>>> In the thread titled
>>>> '[PATCH] samba-tool throws error if there is an empty FSMO role'
>>>> Rowland asked:
>>>>> Also would this be a good time to start discussing dropping support for
>>>>> '2000', Microsoft dropped support for it nearly 6yrs ago, you have to
>>>>> actively select the 2000 function level at provision and who is likely
>>>>> to do that ?
>>>> We have a domain with a Windows 2000 Server system as the domain controller.
>>>> Awhile back I tried to set up Samba 4.1.something as an additional
>>>> domain controller to provide some redundancy if the Windows 2000 machine
>>>> went down. I was not sucessfull as replication did not work from the
>>>> Samba DC back to the Windows DC. After working on it for awhile I gave
>>>> up on it. Is there some special 2000 function level that I could have
>>>> selected that would have made things work?
>>>> I know that it is a very bad thing to rely on Windows 2000 Serever on a
>>>> 15 year old computer, but for several reasons we can not update it.
>>>> We reciently went out and bought a full set of spare parts for the
>>>> machine so that we can fix any failures.
>>>> Tom Schulz
>>> What I meant was, and said so in a roundabout way, should we drop
>>> support for 'provisioning' a *new* domain as function level '2000'.
>>> Obviously there will be cases of people wanting to join a Samba AD
>>> machine to a 2000 server and this should be supported as a way for users
>>> to upgrade to an higher function level.
>>> It sounds like I need to re-visit the fsmo.py code and make it (if
>>> possible) 2000 aware (i.e. no DNS roles)
>> When I tried it, there were three problems that I remember.
>> One was that the DNS information was not picked up by the Windows 2000 DC.
> I have just set up a Samba 2000 AD domain to test my yet again
> re-written fsmo.py code and you don't get any DNS zones in AD, perhaps
> this was the reason for your first problem.
Our Windows 2000 Server does have the DNS information expected of an AD DC.
It may well not have a role for that. I am not sure how to tell.
>> I worked around that by manually entering the information on the 2000 DC.
>> The second was that if I added a new user on the Samba DC, the information
>> was not replicated to the Windows 2000 DC.
> I have tested this and a user created on the first DC is not replicated
> and when I try to force replication, I get this:
> root at dc2000a:~# samba-tool drs replicate dc2000b dc2000a
> ERROR(<class 'samba.drs_utils.drsException'>): DsReplicaSync failed -
> drsException: DsReplicaSync failed (2, 'WERR_BADFILE')
> "/usr/local/samba/lib/python2.7/site-packages/samba/netcmd/drs.py", line
> 350, in run
> drs_utils.sendDsReplicaSync(self.drsuapi, self.drsuapi_handle,
> source_dsa_guid, NC, req_options)
> "/usr/local/samba/lib/python2.7/site-packages/samba/drs_utils.py", line
> 83, in sendDsReplicaSync
> raise drsException("DsReplicaSync failed %s" % estr)
>> Adding a new user on the Windows
>> DC did replicate to the Samba DC.
> If I try to create a user on the second DC, I get this:
> ERROR(ldb): Failed to add user 'User2': -
> ../source4/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules/ridalloc.c:551: No RID Set DN - Remote
> RID Set creation needed
>> The third problem was that if I set up the Samba file server machines to
>> use security=domain then the file servers would often be unable to
>> authenticate a user. They did work before I manually added the DNS
>> records on the Windows 2000 DC. They also did work with security=domain
>> and specifying the server with 'password server=machine'.
> I wonder if it would have worked if you had used 'security = ADS'
I mis-typed that second line. I ment to say security=ads did not work
when the Samba DC`s DNS information was added to the Windows 2000 DC.
The added DNS information was in exactly the same format as that already
in the Windows 2000 DC for itself.
>> I decided that I did not want to trust the Samba DC so I demoted it.
> Don't blame you :-)
>> This was with Samba 4.1.something. I see that there has been some work
>> to make Samba tolerate missing information when becomming a DC, so perhaps
>> I should try again.
> If my small test is anything to go on, I wouldn't bother just yet :-D
Thanks for looking at this. I was hoping that there was some magic step
in setting up a Samba DC when the original one is a Windows 2000 DC.
Applied Dynamics Intl.
schulz at adi.com
More information about the samba-technical