[Samba] Wiki should have Readme First
Petros.Listig at fdrive.com.au
Wed Mar 12 17:50:41 MDT 2014
Quoting"Justin Clacherty" <justin at redfish.com.au>
>> 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
>> 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.
In case Klaus is right (I cannot judge..) I wonder whether the "one
machine advice" should be:
"To run a SME server (directory service and file server on the same
box) it is recommended to run a NT style domain."
Or is this wrong?
More information about the samba