[Samba] Compareing backends

[Paul Gienger]

Collen Blijenberg wrote:

>Well we're using the mysql-backend for a small year now,
>and all works well, there is a way to make the mysql-server
>replicate with the bdc-sql  and vice versa.
>pdc <-> bdc  (noth way's)
>speed, hmm no complains here, but we have 120 workstations and a 1000 users.
>guess if you need more power (more users and ws) ldap is indeed a good choice.
>
>i've seen discussions like these before, and there are several party's who are
>convinced that ldap is the thing..?
>why dunno.. coz'  with mysql you can link several other things to it as well.
>we expanded our mysql-backend, so it can use it for our print-account's 
>aswell.
>depens on how handy someone is with linux and computers.. ?!
>
>guess we all have to make choices on how we make things work for us.
>but basicly, tdbsam -> small user/computer network
>                  mysql   -> medium user/network
>                  ldap      -> medium/big user/network
>  
>
You would call yourself small?  Personally we use(or will once I get to 
putting it in) LDAP for maybe 50 workstations, maybe 65 users, 3 xDC 
servers, but a whole buttload of linux and solaris boxes that never 
touch samba.  There's a couple of things for us that seal it. 
1. Auth without using samba (that is, pam, I don't see much movement on 
the pam_sql front)
2. (fairly quick) replication over wan links
3. Lightweight, afterall, it's the L in LDAP
4. Very cross platform.  Solaris comes with ldap support (barely) in 8, 
(kinda works) in 9. I'm pretty sure that most non-windows platforms come 
with LDAP built in and ready to go.
5-1000 Works pretty much out of the box.  We didn't have to write a 
couple hundred scripts for feature X that comes standard with other 
backends.  The mail server just talks to it, autofs just talks to it.  
And now samba just talks to it, of course once you work it in with the 
schema, etc.  but you have to do that for autofs from redhat, they just 
do it for you.

A lot of people seem to want to build things as complex as possible to 
show how cool they are.  Others use out of the box packages and move on 
to other tasks.  Statements like 'there are ways to do X' send a shiver 
down my spine unless I can do a 'man <command>' and find the way to do 
it.  There are lots of reasons to build your own layers of tech, but 
something like system authentication which will make everyone yell if it 
breaks isn't one of them here.

It's like vi vs emacs.  I think emacs is a horribly bloated POS. Other 
people use it to wash the kitchen sink.  Booyah for them.

>the benefid of ldap is that when the full ads-server is implemented in samba
>this would be the backend to use, coz it's based on it..
>
>have fun and good luck.
>
>On Wednesday 14 July 2004 21:41, rruegner wrote:
>  
>
>>hi, ldap has a good replication feature , which is easy to setup and
>>needed havin a bdc
>>I dont know if this works with mysql ( maybe with shared databases ) but
>>it wouldnt be an easy thing to do
>>Regards
>>
>>Jim C. schrieb:
>>    
>>
>>>How does the speed of SQL compare to the speed of LDAP?  If the speeds
>>>are comparable, why bother with LDAP, which doesn't handle writes very
>>>well?
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim C.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>

-- 
Paul Gienger                     Office:		701-281-1884
Applied Engineering Inc.         Cell:			701-306-6254
Information Systems Consultant   Fax:			701-281-1322
URL: www.ae-solutions.com        mailto:pgienger at ae-solutions.com