51–60 of 73 posts
Last time I tried to use Samba 4, earlier this year, most of the config directives I was trying to use weren't supported. Has that changed?
Yes. Except the one you had on line 42. Seriously, how do you expect someone to give you a useful reply?
As probably one of the more AD-focused participants on HN, I have to approach this with a good dose of skepticism w.r.t. large companies adopting Samba for complex AD environments. AD + DFSN + (DFSR|NTFRS) + LDAP + SSL + RPC + NTP + GPO + CIFS + NTFS + SDDL + WMI + ADWS + etc., is an extremely complex set of stuff to implement, and the cost of supporting a third-party version could, IMHO, easily dwarf the cost of a f…
It's not the cost of a few domain controllers...it's the $50-60/user cost of client access license (CALS). I have 2500 users...that's quite a pricey (approx. $62K) system for directory services. I personally am going to give Samba 4 a look.
When people start mentioning price for these sorts of things I get a little confused, volume licensing for a bunch of hyper-v servers running 20-30 windows guests is actually quite cheap (you only have to pay for each licensed host server) I also have seen mention of a per user cost for ad? not sure where you got that from... I think exchange goes for about 6 bucks a user or so.. the next office setup ill be looking…
Now when you consider that managing unix machines requires much less work to begin with, you can't look at "quite cheap" the same way anymore - it's actually "quite expensive".
Not to mention I often see improved performance of server applications just by switching them to a linux host. Samba 4 is indeed very good news.
As probably one of the more AD-focused participants on HN, I have to approach this with a good dose of skepticism w.r.t. large companies adopting Samba for complex AD environments. AD + DFSN + (DFSR|NTFRS) + LDAP + SSL + RPC + NTP + GPO + CIFS + NTFS + SDDL + WMI + ADWS + etc., is an extremely complex set of stuff to implement, and the cost of supporting a third-party version could, IMHO, easily dwarf the cost of a f…
It's not the cost of a few domain controllers...it's the $50-60/user cost of client access license (CALS). I have 2500 users...that's quite a pricey (approx. $62K) system for directory services. I personally am going to give Samba 4 a look.
1) It's probably not enough money to hire even one extra IT person to deal with new issues that will arise with Samba 4
2) Linux sysadmins are more expensive than Windows sysadmins.
3) Cost of retraining existing IT staff.
4) Potential loss of productivity of your 2500 users
5) Lack of commercial support options.
6) Uncertainty about the future of Samba in general (release time tables, feature support, etc)
As probably one of the more AD-focused participants on HN, I have to approach this with a good dose of skepticism w.r.t. large companies adopting Samba for complex AD environments. AD + DFSN + (DFSR|NTFRS) + LDAP + SSL + RPC + NTP + GPO + CIFS + NTFS + SDDL + WMI + ADWS + etc., is an extremely complex set of stuff to implement, and the cost of supporting a third-party version could, IMHO, easily dwarf the cost of a f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the cost of a few domain controllers...it's the $50-60/user cost of client access license (CALS). I have 2500 users...that's quite a pricey (approx. $62K) system for directory services. I personally am going to give Samba 4 a look.
$62k sounds like a pretty good deal when you consider: 1) It's probably not enough money to hire even one extra IT person to deal with new issues that will arise with Samba 4 2) Linux sysadmins are more expensive than Windows sysadmins. 3) Cost of retraining existing IT staff. 4) Potential loss of productivity of your 2500 users 5) Lack of commercial support options. 6) Uncertainty about the future of Samba in genera…
2. Bad Windows sysadmins are less expensive than good Linux sysadmins. I agree with you there. Good Windows admins, however, are just as expensive. Trust me...I've hired quite a few.
3. Again, I have well-trained Linux guys on staff.
4. This is a very valid possibility we'll need to consider.
5. Not worried about that at all. We use a lot of open source without commercial support options, and our experience with Microsoft support is four hours of scripted troubleshooting on average, with about a 60% success rate of resolution.
6. Not concerned with this at all. Samba has been here for a long while and I don't think it's going anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it potentially could save licensing costs of about one sysadmin it is worth looking at. It is unlikely (but possible) an entire additional sysadmin will need to be employed just to support Samba.
Agreed. We currently have to keep a Windows admin on staff (who actually costs a lot more than the CALs) just to manage our shares, Exchange, and file servers. It'd be nice to get these final pieces of the Windows puzzle out of our environment and staff solely Linux admins. But I do agree with the dbrain's sentiment. If it was going to have a significantly higher TCO, I wouldn't do it.
All that being said, I'm also underpaid (80% regional average). Maybe that's the real reason they keep me around.
As probably one of the more AD-focused participants on HN, I have to approach this with a good dose of skepticism w.r.t. large companies adopting Samba for complex AD environments. AD + DFSN + (DFSR|NTFRS) + LDAP + SSL + RPC + NTP + GPO + CIFS + NTFS + SDDL + WMI + ADWS + etc., is an extremely complex set of stuff to implement, and the cost of supporting a third-party version could, IMHO, easily dwarf the cost of a f…
I think you don't really understand what Samba is for: OEMs. There are several very large companies selling rock solid enterprise NAS devices that need a rock solid implementation of CIFS on top of the seamless ability to join an AD domain. When large companies want to setup Windows file servers, they don't exactly want to stick a bunch of hard drives in a server and pray it doesn't go down - even clustered Windows f…