Link is down; here is an alternative:
Samba 4.0 released
31–40 of 73 posts
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rsyslog is way beyond Windows Event Logger. Audit trails should still work but I don't know if your GPO maps to server configuration automatically. It's easy to test, though. If you want to get started with Samba quickly, you can use Zentyal.
I didn't mean to say that the Windows Event Log is better than syslog or Rsyslog, but it has a particular structure that is really dissimilar, as well as access patterns (WMI, WinRM) that lack an analog.
That's MSFT and their NIH syndrome for you. Fortunately, there are several projects which allow you to map Event Log to syslog such as the aptly named "Eventlog To Syslog" ( http://code.google.com/p/eventlog-to-syslog/ ). This allows you to replace WMI with actual SQL (as Event Log can't use an SQL backend itself), and leverage all of the functionality of an RDBMS.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#33As 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.
If getting AD Domain Services off of Windows will actually avoid the need to buy any Windows Server CALs, then it certainly makes the proposition more interesting. But, this presumes that nearly all the other services (file sharing, http, etc.) are also not Windows.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and if you have enough control over your environment to replace Windows Server as a domain controller, why would you be using the AD stack to begin with?
Aye, if one has that much motivation to chuck Windows for AD, then it's only logical that Windows on the desktop, Exchange, etc., are not on the scene. I've done a lot of work with other directory servers too, and AD does the best job of any when it comes to multimaster replication and a few other things. However, using it purely for LDAP for an environment full of Linux and OS X machines is a tough call...
Why? I have such motivation, yet I have no intent on eliminating Windows from our desktops. That would be very disruptive to our 2.5K users, and Windows does a pretty decent job there. However, AD is very pricey due to CALs, and what it gives me is IMO not worth the price if I can replace it with Samba 4. That said, we're only beginning to explore this option, so it may not be viable or wise.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't mean to say that the Windows Event Log is better than syslog or Rsyslog, but it has a particular structure that is really dissimilar, as well as access patterns (WMI, WinRM) that lack an analog.
That's MSFT and their NIH syndrome for you. Fortunately, there are several projects which allow you to map Event Log to syslog such as the aptly named "Eventlog To Syslog" ( http://code.google.com/p/eventlog-to-syslog/ ). This allows you to replace WMI with actual SQL (as Event Log can't use an SQL backend itself), and leverage all of the functionality of an RDBMS.
Similarly, my employer offers a product[1], which I have worked on, that can subscribe to Event Logs, syslog, ZMQ, etc., and do whatever you like with them. The inspiration to write this was the near-impossibility of getting the interesting, mostly AD-related stuff before all the super-chatty, useless crap pushes it out of the circular logs.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#36Earlier 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.
If getting AD Domain Services off of Windows will actually avoid the need to buy any Windows Server CALs, then it certainly makes the proposition more interesting. But, this presumes that nearly all the other services (file sharing, http, etc.) are also not Windows.
We use Windows Server for three things:
1. Directory services/DC
2. Windows file shares
3. Exchange
I have to buy user CALs for #1 and #2. One CAL gives me the right to connect that user to any of our file shares and to AD. IIRC, that cost when we last purchased was around $50/user.
We also have to buy a separate CAL for Exchange.
I would love to replace AD and our Windows file shares with Samba 4, provided that it was a stable, viable replacement which didn't add a lot of overhead for our admins. Exchange is a separate issue, and one we're currently exploring Zimbra as a possibility. It's early days yet there.
Almost everything else in our environment is Linux.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#37When 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 at will be three beefy hyper-v servers and running most applications on windows core... windows is now getting to the point where the only time I need to do any work is for weekly windows updates.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#38As 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.
If it costs 1 more sysadmin to support it, then it isn't worth it.
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#39Last 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?
I, for one,am extremely glad that i'm not the only one with the line 42 problem!
Re: Samba 4.0 released
#40Link is down; here is an alternative: http://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-4.0.0.html
Thanks for that. The error I get when attempting to go to the original URL ( https://www.samba.org/samba/news/releases/4.0.0.html ) is
Cannot communicate securely with peer: no common encryption algorithm(s).
(Error code: ssl_error_no_cypher_overlap)
UPDATE: I tried restarting my browser, and then it worked BUT after trying to do a binary search on which cipher setting was the "fix", I got to where everything was back to default, and the site still works. Probably there was a site problem that was fixed in the interim.