quote: I'm evaluating replacing some Linux file server for a NAS >product, but >>>> all them make me nervous when the vendor talks about >"Active Directory >>>> support" and nothing else.
Its simple, this is a BAD thing tot do. But if you really want a nas. Get a synology. The best you can get, is my experiance. http://www.synology.com/index.php?lang=default or Just get a pc with 2 harddisks and install. http://www.freenas.org/ or if you want a ready setup for samba4 . get the sernet samba4 appliance. http://www.enterprisesamba.com/samba4app/ My advice, get or the synoligy of the samba4 app. personaly, get the samba4 appliance. get zarafa, and you have about the samba as Windows + exchange Im running samba 3 with zarafa now, and im in the process of upgradeing to samba4. Good luck. Louis >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] Namens Jim Potter >Verzonden: vrijdag 12 juli 2013 8:44 >Aan: [email protected] >Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] About NAS versus Samba > >I use a Netgear readynas1500 as a fileserver for my Samba3/ldap domain >which I' ve just upgraded to AD and it works fine in both >cases (lots of >users, though with relatively few active connections). It runs a bog >standard Samba3 + winbind member server (NT or ADS) as far as >I can tell. > >Having said that, the 2 shortcomings I have found are with windows 7 >clients... troubles doing offline files (there are bunch of tweaks, >but none work perfectly) and it doesnt work too well with the >libraries >feature in win7 (it needs indexing o some sort that isn't povided by >samba I think) > >BTW, would a Samba4 member server setup help with these issues? If it >did, I'd upgrade even if it did invaidate warranty... > >cheers > >Jim > >On 11/07/2013 05:03, [email protected] wrote: >> Hi Cris, >> >>>> Hi there, Has anyone tried to configure a NAS server to >authenticate >>>> users using a Samba PDC, or even a Samba4 DC >(AD-compatible) or an IPA >>>> server? >>> >>> not in a while, but I have done a samba 3 DC >> >> This was not my question. I'm ok running samba 3 DCs. :-) >> >> Have you ever configured a NAS so it would authenticate users from >> your Samba DC and them serve SMB file shares (aka network drives) to >> Windows desktops? >> >> >>>> I'm evaluating replacing some Linux file server for a NAS >product, but >>>> all them make me nervous when the vendor talks about >"Active Directory >>>> support" and nothing else. >>> >>> if 3rd party support is your concern, why are you using fedora >>> instead of >>> RHEL? >> >> Are you trying to sell me RHEL subscriptions or help me with my >> question? ;-) Anything wrong about asking about Fedora on a Fedora >> list, or any server issue is forbidden for Fedora users? ;-) >> >> AFAIK it shouldn't matter, from a technical perspective, if >the samba >> DC runs Fedora, Debian, Slackware, RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu, Solaris, >> whatever. I am not talking about OS level FC drivers or iSCSI >> initiators. Either a NAS will be compatible with Samba3, >Samba4, both >> or neither. This depends on the SMB and MSRPC features needed by the >> NAS, all them application level protocols, not kernel >modules. If I'll >> need Red Hat support for managing this system is another, unrelated, >> question. >> >> If the NAS vendors state they su???port RHEL, that's not que >question >> either, as supporting RHEL could mean the RHEL linux kernel >smbfs and >> cifsfs driver talks to the NAS, not the NAS talks to the >Samba DC. Or >> else, RHEL support may mean just that the NAS talks NFS and >so a RHEL >> machine can mount volumes from tne NAS. That's not what I want. >> >> Most times I see linux servers they are simply members of a MSAD >> domain, not the DC themselves. But mine are. All vendors I talked to >> assume MSAD, and don't know about Samba. :-( >> >> Anyway Fedora is my desktop system and development >workstation. The DC >> in question runs RHEL. But if this works I can try someday using >> Fedora or CentOS with the same (or other) NAS. >> >> >>>>> In theory, many NASes are Linux boxes running samba, so there >>>> shouldn't be a problem, except if the web admin interface >won't support >>>> a samba DC setup and I won't have SSH access to configure >the NAS samba >>>> myself >>>> >>> >>> a cheaper nas will probably use samba, but not all NASs do. >there are >>> several commercial SMB/CIFS implementation out there. >> >> At least iomega/lenovo/emc state their NAS runs Samba. And a lot of >> less know vendors also. I'll buy a single, cheap NAS, not a high end >> EMC rack full of boxes. :-) >> >> But... will any NAS you know work with a Samba DC, or else, using an >> IPA server? Or will they only work with Microsoft Windows Server AD? >> >> All vendors I contacted talk only about MS Active Directory. They >> don't even know about NT4-style domains, which would mean a >Samba3 DC >> should work. Besides, AFAIK a Samba4 DC isn't supported by >RHEL at all >> -- that's why I included IPA in my question -- I'd have to >use Sernet >> packages for Samba4. Even then, Samba4 is very new, I don't >know if a >> NAS implementation would accept it in place of a MSAD DC. >> >> Most vendors talk to me about vmware, exchange and sql >server support. >> They offer me windows-only backup servers and the like. Some even >> offer me SAP R/3 agents, while my ERP is another one. They can only >> follow their standard script for windows shops. So I ask for the >> collective knowledge from the Fedora and Samba lists... can anyone >> tell me "I tried this NAS and it worked"? Or should I better forget >> about this and keep using cheap intel boxes as file servers? >> >> Am I the first linux sysadmin in the world who's considering >to have a >> NAS replacing some file servers but keeping his samba DCs? >> >> >> []s, Fernando Lozano >> > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba > -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
