[Samba] Which Samba version?
dale at BriannasSaladDressing.com
Wed Nov 20 13:03:34 MST 2013
On 11/20/2013 1:55 PM, samba1 at nym.hush.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:13:12 +0000 "Rowland Penny"
> <rowlandpenny at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/11/13 17:36, samba1 at nym.hush.com wrote:
>>> Following on from my post about problems installing SerNet on
>>> Debian, and Rowland’s suggestion to start “yet again, forget
>>> sernet, download and compile samba 4.1.1 and then use it just
>>> samba 3.6”.
>>> I’m looking to migrate an existing Samba 3.1 PDC to a new
>>> and thought that using the latest 3.6 release made sense. I
>>> to replicate the old server on the new one, and make sure there
>>> no problems with the SIDs etc on all the existing PCs.
>>> the new server just has to take over, and work! I did test this
>>> while back, and got a test migration to work with Debian
>>> I’ve not used Samba 4 before, and always had it in the back of
>>> mind that it might not yet be as stable as 3, plus for now I
>>> need AD. I thought it might be easier to just put the new
>>> in with Samba 3, and then perhaps look at an upgrade-in-place to
>>> if ever needed.
>>> My options appear to be:
>>> 1. Keep the 3.6.6 as bundled with Debian Wheezy. Are there any
>>> problems with this? Currently all PCs are WinXP, but after the
>>> server goes in I’ll need to install some Windows 7/8 PCs. I did
>>> test a Windows 7 PC with the Debian Squeezy Samba (3.5.6?), and
>>> worked okay.
>>> 2. Install the Debian Backports 3.6.19 version (as suggested by
>>> Louis). I didn’t know about this until Louis mentioned it.
>>> 3. Try to get SerNet 3.6.20 working – I thought this might have
>>> been an easy install, but I could be doing something wrong.
>>> had a quick look, and did see someone else had a similar problem
>>> with SerNet on a Uubunto server, where it uninstalled Gnome.
>>> was no follow-up so I’m not sure if this was resolved.
>>> 4. Look at Samba 4. However, with my timescales, I wouldn’t
>>> to look at this if it’s a completely different beastie. As I
>>> I should be able to get the migration working to 3.6, but I’d be
>>> worried that migrating to 4 might introduce a lot more problems
>>> I’m interested to know what you think would be the best
>>> Thanks again.
>> Hi, the reason I suggested S4 is that the next release of 3.6 will
>> the last proper release, after that it is just security fixes. S4
>> can be
>> run just like S3 or if you want to, it can be an AD DC, so to put
>> into the OP's terms, it can be a different beastie or it can be
>> virtually the same beastie but one that will get updates.
>> You pays your money and makes your choices ;-)
> Thanks, Rowland. It might make sense to go for Samba 4. How do
> you make it run like S3? Do you just use an smb.conf from S3, or
> do you have to add additional statements and parameters?
server role = classic primary domain controller
> The next question is, how do you get a current, stable S4 release
> for Debian Wheezy?
self-compile, sernet, or add the Debian testing/jessie repository to
More information about the samba