[Samba] AD-DC as file server
rowlandpenny at googlemail.com
Thu Mar 13 06:56:01 MDT 2014
On 13/03/14 12:46, steve wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 13:20 +0100, Klaus Hartnegg wrote:
>> On 13.03.2014 13:04, steve wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 12:43 +0100, Klaus Hartnegg wrote:
>>>> The accepted practice seems to be, set up Samba 4 for authorisation and
>>>> then set up a separate Samba3 fileserver.
>>> Very confusing. Samba3 is no longer developed. Surely we need to
>>> recommend Samba4 for both rôles? By all means, separate them.
>> That was from one year ago. Today it would translate into using the smbd
>> binary from samba4.
>> Maybe this confusion started during the beta phase. There it was
>> recommended to not use the samba4 daemon for anything except SYSVOL and
>> and NETLOGON.
>> Today this does not seem to be correct any more, because meanwhile smbd
>> from samba3 was merged into samba4.
> But smbd has always been part of Samba4. It works in exactly the same
> way as it did in Samba3. The only difference we can see is that you
> can't run it with samba.
I think that you have a misunderstanding here, if you start the samba
daemon, this will automatically start the smbd daemon unless you
provisioned with --use-ntvfs.
> Isn't Samba4 an extension of Samba3? A superset?
Yes, samba4 is everything that samba 3 was, plus the ability to be an AD DC.
> Shouldn't the one-year-ago sentence read, '...set up Samba4 for
> authorisation and then set up a separate Samba4 file-server.'?
Never really understood this, you can run samba4 as a fileserver, you
just run into the possible different uid & gid number problem.
> If we then qualified with, '...and then run samba and smbd
> respectively'? That would save a lot of confusion.
> But maybe we still haven't got it:(
Nearly there ;-)
> S pp AT
More information about the samba