About Samba4 vs Win2008 differences
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
metze at samba.org
Fri Jun 25 07:23:28 MDT 2010
Zahari,
> This is a very good I idea and I will capitalize (in the good way) on
> it. Such sets of comparisons will be provided from my side to the list soon.
>
> Thanks for the involvement and hints!
I fixed the policy guid bug together with rid and dns related things here:
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master4-s3upgrade-review
metze
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
> <metze at samba.org <mailto:metze at samba.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Zahari,
>
> > Here you can see results from the source4/scripting/devel/ldapcmp
> comparison
> > tool that ran today build of Samba4 against Windows 2008 (not R2).
> There are
> > some interesting things in schema.diff concerning attributes
> > like: adminDisplayName, adminDescription, systemMayContain !
> >
> > Differences in letter case for CN, OU etc. I am interested in are
> gone for
> > which I thank you!
> >
> > P.S. Do you think that this diff is not correct and I should run Samba4
> > against Windows 2008 R2 ??
>
> I think you should compare the with the same functional levels in both
> domains.
> The w2k8r2 domain uses FRS instead of DFS-R which means it runs in a
> level <= 2 (WIN2003)
>
> It would be also good to use a windows server that doesn't have the
> terminal server installed,
> so that it doesn't have the TERMSRV/* servicePrinicalNames.
>
> The difference in the GroupPolicy GUIDs is a bug in s4, we use
> random ones
> while we should use static (wellknown) ones.
>
> I think the most useful test would be to use a plain (fresh installed)
> w2k8r2 server
> and try a dcpromo to each functional level (and do the same for the
> samba server).
> And then get the diffs for each functional level. I guess all the rID*
> attributes will
> also went away then.
>
> Then we're able to change our provision to be correct each
> functional level
> and workout upgrade scripts that need to run before raising the
> functional level.
>
> metze
>
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Zahari Zahariev
> <zahari.zahariev at gmail.com <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks a lot Matthias,
> >>
> >> That's what I thought but I wanted just to make sure. I will verify it
> >> and will know it is thing from the past.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 09:38 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> >>> Hi Zahari,
> >>>
> >>> you mean the "OU"->"ou", "CN"->"cn" stuff? This has already been
> fixed a
> >>> month ago
> >>> (
> >>
> http://gitweb.samba.org/samba.git/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=ee524d3182de85dff2febaad2481e37ad5a8be8f
> >> ).
> >>>
> >>> Matthias
> >>>
> >>> Zahari Zahariev wrote:
> >>>> Hi Matthias,
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you managed to get anything done from this diff? I am
> interested
> >>>> particularly in "CN" vs "cn" and "OU" vs "ou" etc. stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Zahari Zahariev
> >>>> <zahari.zahariev at gmail.com <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you Mathias!
> >>>>
> >>>> I believed before I have not seen these differences with the
> same
> >>>> configuration. I will try get results with Windows2008 (R2) for
> >>>> Schema and then we will see where is the hurdle.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Zahari
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
> >>>> <mdw at samba.org <mailto:mdw at samba.org> <mailto:mdw at samba.org
> <mailto:mdw at samba.org>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you Zahari for providing those outputs. I pushed a
> huge
> >>>> amount of directory content fixes and will also integrate a
> >>>> fix for the non-normalised RDN attribute names ("CN" instead
> >>>> of "cn", "OU" instead of "ou"...)
> >>>> Regarding the differences in the schema objects I can do
> >>>> nothing (as you know these are MS-provided files and I won't
> >>>> touch them). Could the differences lie in the fact that you
> >>>> have compared the Windows 2008 schema to the Windows 2008R2
> >>>> schema (s4)?
> >>>>
> >>>> Matthias
> >>>>
> >>>> Zahari Zahariev wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (Resending with smaller attachment)
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello Matthias,
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand your situation. Here are the three diff
> files
> >>>> as LDAPCMP shows them now for yesterday Samba4 (default
> >>>> provision) vs Win2008 functional level 2008 (not R2).
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe the last time I have run that for SCHEMA there
> >>>> were 0 differences but now there are quite a few. Maybe
> >>>> someone has upgraded the Schema at some point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me what do you think.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Zahari
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Zahari Zahariev
> >>>> <zahari.zahariev at gmail.com
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>
> >>>> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>>
> >>>> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>
> >>>> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com
> <mailto:zahari.zahariev at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello Matthias,
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand your situation. Here are the three diff
> >>>> files as
> >>>> LDAPCMP shows them now for yesterday Samba4 (default
> >>>> provision) vs
> >>>> Win2008 functional level 2008 (not R2).
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe the last time I have run that for SCHEMA
> >>>> there were 0
> >>>> differences but now there are quite a few. Maybe
> >>>> someone has
> >>>> upgraded the Schema at some point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me what do you think.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Zahari
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100625/34654798/attachment.pgp>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list