[Samba] Why is Samba4 not recommended as a file server?

[Michael Adam]

On 2016-07-28 at 12:43 +0700, Olivier wrote:
> Mark Foley <mfoley at ohprs.org> writes:
> 
> > Since you bring up that topic (Samba4 not recommended as a file server), I've been meaning to
> > ask on this list for a while: Why?
> > [...]
> >> As for the info you would like adding to the wiki, it used to be there, 
> >> but when the wiki was re-written, it was removed. The thinking seemed to 
> >> be, as samba doesn't recommend using the DC as a fileserver, it 
> >> shouldn't be there. Samba has been recommending not using the DC as a 
> 
> What was said is "not using the DC as file server", not "not using
> Samba".
> 
> My understanding is that it is better to have one machine running the DC
> and another serving files.

Exactly.

And it is a recommendation for a better layout,
not a strict requirement.

Reasons being that it is genrally better to separate
responsibilites, and that in this case, you have more
control over the fine-tunings of a file server if it
is not at the same time an AD/DC.

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160728/d47ed880/signature.sig>