Comments request to refute arguments about Samba...
Peter Polkinghorne
Peter.Polkinghorne at brunel.ac.uk
Tue Dec 14 11:02:48 GMT 1999
The Hermit Hacker said:
> Samba is an implementation of old Lan Manager stuff. For a
> listing of what real Lan Man did/does a reference is "Microsoft Lan
> Manager, Programmer's Reference", MS Press, was $40.
>
> With Lan Man one has groups, and groups, and uncounted more
> groups.
Well we have 20,000 users, 40+ active Samba servers and 1 workgroup
(and of course no browsing). NBT alluded to below means workgroups can span
subnets.
> They use the word "shares" these days. And the wire is cheerfully
> busy with NetBIOS vintage traffic, making bridging a must. Management
> is equally delightful, especially security.
Samba does not work with vanilla unroutable NetBEUI, but with NBT (ie NetBIOS
encapsulated over TCP - thus routable). Using WINS (which Samba can provide)
broadcast traffic can be reduced.
> So if 1980 technology is good enough then use Samba. Think
> small, don't interact, that's the stuff.
Well we are not a small site and use Samba successfully for home directories
and applications servicing of NT machines (3,000+).
Also SMB is what is out there on PCs right now and while it has 80's origins
(as does Netware) it is evolving!
> An oh by the way on Solaris. Unless those machines are fully
> patched and carefully sealed off then the bad guys will feast on them
> and all machines they can reach via packet snoop programs. We have
> had a very bad time with that part of things and the problems are not
> over.
Well these days Solaris is reasonably well secured - all OS makers have woken
up to varying extents to security needs - even Microsoft.
> There has been serious exploration of SAMBA as replacement for
> Netware by the Systems Group here at UK. Right now, they are testing
> a "Student Locker" system using SAMBA. It isn't widely in use yet,
> but results have been promising (I guess). One concern has been the
> amount of RAM needed for each SAMBA connection. On the test machine,
> SMB connections are using ~3MB/connection. At that rate, we'd need
> about 3GB of RAM to accomodate our ~1000 machines.
We have found that by trimming the smb.conf file we can get down to .75Mb for
each connection - but this depends on what you are doing.
Finally a little ref for what we have done:
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~peter/samba/
I hope to update when we have upgraded to 2.0.6 (from 1.9.18p10), as we have
taken various measures to improve performance eg avoid AMD!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Polkinghorne, Computer Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH,|
| Peter.Polkinghorne at brunel.ac.uk +44 1895 274000 x2561 UK |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the samba
mailing list