[Samba] Wiki should have Readme First

Justin Clacherty justin at redfish.com.au
Wed Mar 12 17:40:06 MDT 2014

> From: Klaus Hartnegg [mailto:hartnegg at gmx.de]
> On 13.03.2014 00:23, Justin Clacherty wrote:
> > Yes, why is this necessary?  I know it has been a recommendation (that
> > is liberally ignored) on Windows servers since inception but I had
> > thought this was more a performance thing.
> In the case of Samba4 the main issue is not performance, it's incompatibility.
> From what I read on the mailing list, the smbd that gets started by samba
> behaves differently from when it's started separately as file server. The one
> started by samba is only for SYSVOL and lacks several features. Also nmbd
> does not work together well with the samba daemon. The result is that many
> file sharing things first seem to work fine, but there are scenarios in which
> this causes problems.
> I don't know the details, and would welcome others to jump in and fill in
> these gaps.
> Maybe the text should be put somewhere on a wiki without immediately
> linking to it from the main page, so it can first be improved.

Thanks Klaus.  I've just been searching back through the list and have seen Andrew mention that it's predominantly a philosophical reason rather than a technical one.  So for a small office that really only needs one server an all-in-one approach is fine, but if you're going to have several servers anyway you'd ideally have two AD servers and separate file servers.  Prior to the release of 4.0 I believe there were technical reasons for this (something to do with partial rfc2307 compliance).

Perhaps this is something that could go on the wiki also?  i.e. different implementation scenarios (SOHO, SME, and so forth).


More information about the samba mailing list