[Samba] Which Samba version?
rowlandpenny at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 20 13:31:42 MST 2013
On 20/11/13 19:55, 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?
If you compile S4 yourself, you get 4 daemons - samba, smbd, nmbd and
winbind. If you run the samba daemon this will start smbd, nmbd will not
start and another version of winbind is built into the samba daemon,
this after provision is an AD DC.
if you set up smb.conf just as if it was 3.6 and run the smbd and nmbd
daemons, you basically get same as a 3.6 machine, be it an ad client,
pdc or a standalone server etc.
> The next question is, how do you get a current, stable S4 release
> for Debian Wheezy?
In my opinion, (for what it is worth) don't bother, it would seem that
the days of debian having a long support time have gone, the last
version (6) was only supported for about 2 1/2 years. Use Centos 6 or
Ubuntu 12.04 or similar, basically any distro that has extended support.
More information about the samba