[Samba] samba_dlz: Failed to configure zone... already exists

Jim Seymour jseymour at LinxNet.com
Thu Sep 3 15:46:44 UTC 2015

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:18:21 +0100
Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny241155 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/09/15 15:57, Jim Seymour wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:07:37 +0100
> > Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny241155 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> The kerberos default_realm must be the samba AD DC domain name and
> >> usually
> > So if I put the Samba AD DC in, say, "addc.example.com,"
> > "addc.example.com" must be the Kerberos default_realm?
> Yes

Very well.  But I expect this may well soon become a non-issue,

> > Yes, but I need example.com's zone to be a "normal" (i.e.: static)
> > zone.  It is now, and will remain, *the* zone for the corporate LAN
> > at this location.
> Then use another machine for the main zone.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

> If you are using this in a corporate environment, you probably
> shouldn't be running the main DNS server on the Samba4 machine. Just
> because you can do something is not a good reason to do it! What will
> happen if the Samba4 machines crashes (don't say it wont, it may)

If Samba4 can, and particularly if it's likely to, crash this machine:
Then Samba4 will not be used, and that's the end of that.  If we wanted
to run machines that can't walk and chew gum at the same time, we'd run
MS-Win servers and be done with it.

I've had what is a, by now, archaic Sun Sparc Solaris box, running for
about a decade, serving as:

    . File server (NFS and SMB/CIFS) (about 1TB of file storage)
    . Mail server (mostly been moved to an outside server, now)
    . Web (intranet) server, with some active content
    . NIS+ and LDAP directory services server
    . RADIUS server
    . DNS server
    . DHCP server
    . RDBMS server (two different RDBMS', low-volume, very
    . Applications license server
    . CVS (source code versioning system) server
    . NTP server
    . Print server
    . SSH server

and probably some things I'm forgetting, atm.

For the entire operation, inside-and-out, I have only four servers (two
inside and two out), plus a firewall box.  And the only reason there
are that many is because the manufacturing system had to run on RHEL,
which we don't use anywhere else.

None of them ever crash.  None of them ever have services just fall
over and die for no good reason.  I don't run crashy, undependable
servers or provide crashy, undependable services.  If I wanted to run
crashy, undependable stuff, I'd be running MS-Win servers.

If the new server can't replace the old one, on its own, running Samba4
as an AD DC, then I'll fall back to running it as a plain old workgroup
server and, if the company ever want AD, they can buy a MS-Win server.

> Now, if you put the main DNS
> server on another machine and the samba4 machine goes down, DNS
> should still work.

Do you know how long it'd take before my "phone would melt" if the AD
server went down?

What I'm taking away, from your comments, is more-or-less reinforcing
my earlier concerns: That this Samba/BIND_DLZ/Kerberos/etc. lash-up is
not exceedingly stable--only now you're suggesting that it can *crash my

Yeah.... no.

I'm thinking perhaps it's time to rethink this entire plan.

Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering.  If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at <http://jimsun.LinxNet.com/contact/scform.php>.

More information about the samba mailing list