[Samba] AD 2008 R2 vs. samba 3.4.5 (fwd)

[Robert Freeman-Day]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:02:22PM -0700, Jack Downes wrote:
>> Similar situation here, 484 printers at current count, 2120 users
>> (hospital), and we've been pretty happy with the Samba/CUPS solution. 
>> However, recently, too many issues with Samba an printing (3.4.5,
>> debian), so we've gotten rid of it, still use it for file shares and
>> such.  Anyway, we are a straight to cups setup here now.  several
>> scripts are used by us with Desktop authority to "convert" the old samba
>> printers to cups printers as the user logs in. It's working pretty good
>> actually, and our load on the printserver is always around .07... it's
>> flat amazing.  For printing, I'd suggest looking at IPP - from windows
>> 2k on, MS supports it client side, so it's pretty nice.
>>
>> We are actually working on a system that will allow printer grouping -
>> eg, load a group of printers to a machine based on it's location or
>> presumed location.  And have printers load to the system as a
>> system-wide printer instead of a personal printer - with all
>> driver/drawer settings correct.   Yes, this is doable with samba easily,
>> but cups we've been having to do a bit of this on our side.  Working
>> pretty good. 
> 
> Guenther and Metze are working on the print spool code for 3.5.0.
> 
> Hopefully we'll have a solution for you soon. Right now the
> best Samba release for printing is 3.3.10.
> 
> Jeremy.
Jeremy,

Does the team have recommended versions of samba to use generally in an
AD 2008 R2 environment?  We are running into many ntlmv2 issues similar
to a bug reported to RedHat, but with more then just the 3.0.x code (of
which I know is no longer supported upstream, but RH supports):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561325

I was unable to pin down a specific release/patch that fixed the
problem, but it seems to work better with 3.4.5.  Some guidance would be
very helpful.  In the meantime, I am going to be adding my two cents on
the above bug report.

Thanks,

Robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt9k3EACgkQup357T5MfTYbiwCfdkWW4UmdikpRTmf/Z7nTSfMK
G2EAoNLv9NznIsqwDFr471/3Zn4V5PCV
=T/OO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----