[Samba] MS Access

Gaiseric Vandal gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com
Thu Jan 13 07:12:43 MST 2011


I should clarify that I have not especially noticed problems with MS 
Access 2003/2007 on Samba but we don't use it heavily.

I WOULD expect that you will need to spend a little time tweeking file 
permissions.  I use Samba 3.4.x and 3.0.x with Solaris 10 and ZFS file 
system.  ZFS supports file system permisions  which are similar to 
Windows but not quite the same-  so file permissions don't always 
translate cleanly between windows/samba clients and the underlying unix 
file system.  (I think the deal is that one uses posix standards and one 
uses nfsv4 standards.)

Linux ext3/ext4 may be more consistent with windows.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Samba] MS Access
Date: 	Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:07:05 -0500
From: 	Gaiseric Vandal <gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com>
Reply-To: 	gaiseric.vandal at gmail.com
To: 	samba at lists.samba.org

What version of Access?  I find that, in general Office 2003 plays a
little nicer with Samba than Office 2007 (Office likes to change file
perms on files.)

Does Microsoft even supply security patches for Windows 2000 anymore?
(For me, when MS did not provide patches for extended daylight savings,
that was the sign it was time to give up.)    Between security patches
and hardware capability running Windows 2000 should be out of the
question.      And I don't think there is a 64-bit version of Windows
2000 anyway.

So really your question should be Samba/Linux vs Windows 2008-  although
giving yourself til this weekend to plan, test and deploy is cutting it
a little tight.

I believe their are sernet packages for Samba 3.3. on Centos  5.x.   But
I would go with something a little more leading edge-  in my case I like
Fedora Core 11 or Fedora Core 12 which ships with (or updates to ) samba

On 01/13/2011 07:24 AM, compdoc wrote:
>  I need to have a server built and ready to install by this weekend, and I'm
>  trying to decide whether to use the customer's copy of Windows 2000 Server,
>  or Ubuntu or Centos. I think Ubuntu would have a newer version of samba.
>  The problem is, for this one server, about 20 users hammer MS Access
>  databases all day, and samba seems to have had issues with Access in the
>  past. Is that still the case?
>  The old server is dying, and they own Windows 2000 Server so it won't cost
>  them $$ to continue using the OS, but it cannot take advantage of newer
>  hardware/technologies, so its slower.
>  Thanks for any info...

More information about the samba mailing list