I have no experience with that. However it seems that DFS is supported, but not DFS replication. You can find more details here: http://wiki.qnap.com/wiki/Dfs. Extract:
"QNAP firmware supports DFS in the form of a feature called "Folder Aggregation" and "Portal Folders". Keep in mind however, that the official DFS implementation from Microsoft supports both redirecting UNC paths **and** replication of those folders locally to provide higher performance to local users and replication over WAN links using a bandwidth efficient method. The QNAP implementation, being based on Samba, doesn't bundle replication in with DFS." More details on Folder Aggregation: http://www.qnap.com/en/index.php?lang=en&sn=5210 Regards, JCC On 29.10.2013 17:04, Sam Cayze wrote: > > Can it also act as a DFS share? > > > > *From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *On Behalf Of > *Jean-Christian Chevalier > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:05 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] NAS SMB server (QNAP?) > > > > QNAP appliances can be integrated in AD and it works well. You basically add > it to your domain as > you would a Windows PC. Then you can set up permissions for the shares you > define on the NAS using > AD groups and/or users. > > I have one in use at a small business since 2 years (model TS-459U-SP+). It > is a domain member and > the only problem I had with it was due to a power loss. I would definitively > recommend having it > connected to a UPS (which is now the case at this customer). > > It is used as a secondary file server and is accessed from Windows PCs, in > the same way the main > SBS 2008 file server is accessed. From an end user perspective, it works > exactly the same. So SMB > is working fine. > > The web UI is easy to use and no Linux knowledge is needed. Everything can be > configured from the > web UI and you do not need to configure Samba manually. > > They now have SMB 2.0 available on their new QTS OS 4.0. I have no experience > with it yet, but > will have soon. > > I'm also using one at my home office, since more than 3 years and had no > problem with it. However > it is not AD integrated. > > I can recommend it for the use you describe. > > JCC > > > > On 28.10.2013 19:06, Ben Scott wrote: > > SHORT VERSION > > Anyone here used the QNAP appliances as an SMB file server ("Windows > File Sharing") in an Active Directory environment? How'd it go? > > (Not as an iSCSI target or other block-level protocol.) > > LONG VERSION > > I'm looking for what will basically be a network-attached disk > drive. Non-critical file storage for things like ISO images, hard > disk images, archives of old user files, installation sources, that > sort of thing. SMB will be the protocol. Clients will be Win 7, XP, > and that one Win 2000 computer I just can't get rid of. Permissions > will be pretty simple, basically a couple of groups, > read-only/read-write/none, pull from and authenticate to our Active > Directory. No interest in running any applications on the box, nor > doing anything more than file copies to/from it. We're not going to > be running application off it (unless you count installers). No block > level protocols like iSATA, ATA-over-Ethernet, etc. Hardware will be > twin mirrored 4TB disks, maybe a third sometimes gets attached to make > an offline backup. Rack mount. > > One option would be a Dell R210-II running CentOS Linux, Linux > kernel software RAID, Samba, etc. I've done that before. It works. > > But management here is concerned that good Linux people are harder > to find than Windows people. They don't like that my minions don't > have expertise with such systems. So I'm considering something that > comes with a bit more hand-holding, a bit more "ready-to-go, > out-of-the-box". And NAS hardware can be cheaper than general-purpose > server hardware. > > Specifically, I'm looking at the QNAP TS-412U. Four bays, what > looks like a decent web UI, claims to do Active Directory integration. > All sorts of flashy bells and whistles we'll never use, but oh well. > It's significantly cheaper than most rack-mount general-purpose > servers will be. But if their SMB stuff is borken (I presume they're > using Samba, but how you configure Samba matters a lot), it's no good > to me. > > Thoughts/suggestions/experiences/etc. welcomed. > > -- Ben > > >
