Confused about samba4 & s3fs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 09:51 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
> Hi, over on the samba-users forum, somebody asked a question about  
> Samba4's rfc2307 compatibility with Samba3 and got this reply:
> 
> [quote]
> At this stage, we still don't recommend combining file server and DC
> functions.  By separating these functions onto different (virtual)
> servers, you can avoid this issue.
> [unquote]
> 
> but from '[ANNOUNCE] Samba 4.0 beta6' there is this statement:
> 
> [quote]
> In particular note that the new default configuration 's3fs' may have
> different stability characteristics compared with our previous default
> file server.  We are making this release so that we can find and fix
> any of these issues that arise in the real world.
> [unquote]
> 
> I do not understand this, the first statement says don't do it, the 
> second says please try it and see if any issues arise.

For the AD DC, we have always recommended separation, and using a Samba
3.x member server for critical files.  However, there are some functions
of being an AD DC that require a file server, such as providing the
sysvol share, and DCE/RPC pipes over SMB. 

We chose to make 's3fs' the default in the AD DC, and did so earlier
than perhaps it was perfectly stable because we need the feedback (no
point pulling the switch on the day of the first release candidate!).  

The challenge in making that change in default is that the old default
was incredibly stable!  The ntvfs file server isn't being further
developed, but folks who have had long-standing Samba4 deployments
simply haven't had issues with it, and found Samba4 quite stable
overall, despite the 'alpha' designation.  As such, it was a step into
the unknown at that point, and an odd situation where we worried the
'beta' releases could be less stable than the alphas that proceeded
them!

I will tidy up these statements on the basis of the experience we have
had since that time. 

> There is also this statement in '[ANNOUNCE] Samba 4.0 beta6'
> 
> [quote]
> Samba 4.0 beta ships with two distinct file servers.  We now use the
> file server from the Samba 3.x series 'smbd' for all file serving by
> default.  For pure file server work, the binaries users would expect
> from that series (nmbd, winbindd, smbpasswd) continue to be available.
> [unquote]
> 
>  From these two statements from '[ANNOUNCE] Samba 4.0 beta6', my 
> understanding is that 's3fs' can & should be used to test it, is this 
> correct? and if not, why not.

This is and will remain the default configuration of the AD DC.  We
expect it to work (modulo known bugs such as changing group policies as
non-administrator) but we need folks to test it to help assure us of
that.  

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org