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

Lee Brown leeb at ratnaling.org
Thu Sep 3 16:43:22 UTC 2015


It wasn't an implication that Samba4 would crash your server, rather it was
a question of what happens *if* that box fails (power supply, memory, cpu,
disk controller, etc. I've seen 'em all)?

Consider this.  I had one site with a Microsoft DC providing DHCP to it's
clients and shared folders.  When that DC failed due to disk controller, it
stopped issuing DHCP leases.  Users didn't care the share went down, but
they did that internet connectivity was lost.  Well MS recommends against
this practice anyway, I moved DHCP to the router and told the admin
responsible to fix that server.

AD is a little different.  You should separate your root DC from your file
server (I run them in separate jails on the same box) so you can upgrade
the DC separately from the file server (just regurgitating what I've read,
not done this in practice)

The biggest issue I see is hardware maintenance with your setup.  If the
PSU needs to be replaced, I take it the entire corp goes down for the
duration?  Routing is separate, but without DNS pretty useless for regular
users.  At the least I'd consider a 2nd box and make some of that stuff
redundant (DHCP, DNS especially, never hurts to have multiple more NTP's).
I too like to stack up as much as I can on these modern boxes, but I ensure
there's some redundancy to cope with the unexpected.

I hope the perspective helps -- lee

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Jim Seymour <jseymour at linxnet.com> wrote:

> 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,
> because...
> >
> [snip]
> > > 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.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > 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
>       lightly-loaded)
>     . 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.
> [snip]
> > 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
> server*?!?!
> Yeah.... no.
> I'm thinking perhaps it's time to rethink this entire plan.
> Regards,
> Jim
> --
> 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>.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

More information about the samba mailing list