Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Christ Schlacta
ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy 
it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing for now, 
but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only 
trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.


I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN 
environment yet, but soon~  zvol has been there from zfs for a while, so 
if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the closest I'd trust 
it in production yet.


On 6/25/2011 17:48, Charles Weber wrote:

I have a ~100 TB multi server multi SAN XFS/Samba deployment and have been
using it since early fedora core days. EXT4 is now where I would consider
using it instead of XFS. But with XFS and LVM I have trivial and very quick
formatting, partition resizing and partition duplicating. It has been great.
I would like some of the ZFS/BTRFS or GFS2 advantages but hey on a UPS, XFS
just works and it is proven.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Grantgrantlid...@gmail.com  wrote:


On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Christian PERRIERbubu...@debian.org  wrote:


Quoting Linda W (sa...@tlinx.org):


I regret misinforming anyone.

I don't think you did..:-)

You mentioned xfs as a very well supported FS and we later were
reminded that its support was developed by Jeremy. I think this is
compliant with XFS is very well supported and one can rely on this
code...

--


Thanks everyone for a most interesting and useful thread.
--
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


Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Jeremy Allison
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote:
 ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to
 deploy it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing
 for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs
 are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.
 
 I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN
 environment yet, but soon~  zvol has been there from zfs for a
 while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the
 closest I'd trust it in production yet.

Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting
but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for
anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by
and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(.

Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem.

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 6/26/2011 3:09 AM, Christ Schlacta wrote:
 ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to deploy
 it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing for now,
 but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs are only
 trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.

I think your personal definition of production ready is very different
from that of most folks WRT their production servers.  Case in point,
from:  http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html

The ZFS code can be modified to build as a CDDL licensed kernel module
which is not distributed as part of the Linux kernel. This makes a
Native ZFS on Linux implementation possible if you are willing to
download and build it yourself.

Carefully note the last sentence.  Most SAs aren't going to be
comfortable with such a situation, for many glaringly obvious reasons.
As long as it's tied to the CDDL, requires manual installation, and has
no support from distros (RedHat/SuSE), ZFS Linux will never be
production ready, at least not for the majority.

-- 
Stan
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


Re: [Samba] Problem getting Samba fully working

2011-06-26 Thread Moe, John
 -Original Message-
 From: Linda Walsh [mailto:sa...@tlinx.org]
 Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2011 8:02 PM
 To: Moe, John
 Cc: Samba mailing list
 Subject: Re: Problem getting Samba fully working
 
 Moe, John wrote:
  Hello all,
 
  Relevant info up front: Gentoo PC, using 2.6.38 kernel and Samba
 3.4.12.
 
  I'm trying to get a FreeRadius instance working for our Windows
 network.
  To do so, I need a Linux box running Samba.  I've installed and
  configured Kerberos, Samba and FreeRadius, and can get most things
to
  work.  I can get a Kerberos key using kinit, and sudo net ads
keytab
  list shows me tickets.  I can use things like net ads user myuser
-
 U
  myuser to get info about my user account.  I can use sudo wbinfo -
 t
  to show the secret trust is OK, and sudo net ads testjoin works as
  well.  I can even log on to my switch using RADIUS authentication to
 my
  AD account (using ntlm_auth).  So a lot of the pieces are working
  correctly.
 
  [2011/06/21 07:12:21,  1]
  rpc_client/cli_pipe.c:949(cli_pipe_validate_current_pdu)
cli_pipe_validate_current_pdu: RPC fault code
  DCERPC_FAULT_ACCESS_DENIED received from host MYGC.my.domain.name!
 
 
 
   I am not sure the above messages are from your
 ssh...  And I know nothing about configuration with Free Radius or
 Kerberos, so your problems may be completely different from ones
 I've had but...
 
 
 
 I take it you are running ssh on the Win7 workstation and trying to
 login to the linux samba server.
 
 
 if your username in the domain is 'user' (i.e. you are 'domain\user'),
 and your linux account is 'user',
 then on the ssh line, you might try
 
 'ssh user@linux-server'  instead of the normal 'ssh linux-server'
 
 If that works, then your 'sshd' server on your linux server
 is probably receiving 'domain\user' as the username, (not just 'user')
 and doesn't know what to do with that.
 
 
 Theoretically should be resolvable via proper pam and config files
 (all the file ops map my 'domain\user' = 'user' on the PDC), but,
 a _*hack*_ I use (but would find a better solution in a production
 environment) is to create a 2nd /etc/passwd  /etc/shadow entry
 that dups my 'user' but has the username field changed to
 'DOMAIN\user'.
 (getting the capitalization to agree with what the workstation think's
 it is, is important in this case; upper case is norm, so unless you've
 customized things in the win registry, shouldn't be a prob (not that I
 would have any knowledge of this, of course...)
 
 But I'd try to get 'winbind' config'ed with pam to map the username
 properly for a best fix (on my 'todo list') ... just hasn't
 been that important ...
 
 Best short term:
 
 specify the username with the hostname when using the 'ssh' (or scp,
 i.e. 'scp file user@remote:/tmp' ) ...
 
 In any event, using kerberos/freeradius, there should be some way
 to make sure that a 'domain\user' is mapped to 'user' on a PDC...
 
 Or it might be the 'ssh' client that shouldn't be prepending the
 windows domainname  not sure.
 
 But hopefully gives you some ideas where to look...
 

Thanks for the reply.  Maybe I haven't made myself clear in the first
post.  I'm not asking for any help relating to FreeRadius; I just want
to get basic Samba working properly.  Share browsing via guest access
works, and I get a number of other successes from other tests, but I
can't seem to get login using AD username working, neither locally nor
via SSH.

To get integration with a native Windows 2003 AD domain, I was to
understand I needed Kerberos; was that wrong?  Maybe I've complicated
things a bit here.

As to the login problem: I'm using OpenSSH on Cygwin on my Win7 PC, and
it doesn't matter if I try:

ssh servername
ssh user@servername
ssh domain\user@servername
ssh 'u...@my.domain.name'@servername

They all return the same things in /var/log/messages:

Jun 27 09:58:05 servername sshd[27461]: SSH: Server;Ltype:
Version;Remote: 10.73.24.60-18606;Protocol: 2.0;Client: OpenSSH_5.8
Jun 27 09:58:05 servername sshd[27461]: Invalid user
usern...@my.domain.name from 10.73.24.60
Jun 27 09:58:05 servername sshd[27463]: pam_tally2(sshd:auth):
pam_get_uid; no such user
Jun 27 09:58:08 servername sshd[27463]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): check pass;
user unknown
Jun 27 09:58:08 servername sshd[27463]: pam_unix(sshd:auth):
authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=
mypcname.my.domain.name 
Jun 27 09:58:08 servername sshd[27463]: pam_winbind(sshd:auth): getting
password (0x0090)
Jun 27 09:58:08 servername sshd[27463]: pam_winbind(sshd:auth):
pam_get_item returned a password
Jun 27 09:58:09 servername sshd[27461]: error: PAM: Authentication
failure for illegal user username OR DOMAIN\\username OR
usern...@my.domain.name from mypcname.my.domain.name
Jun 27 09:58:09 servername sshd[27461]: Failed keyboard-interactive/pam
for invalid user username OR DOMAIN\\username OR
usern...@my.domain.name from 10.73.24.60 port 18606 ssh2
Jun 27 09:58:09 servername 

Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Stan Hoeppner
On 6/26/2011 5:13 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
 On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote:
 ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to
 deploy it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing
 for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs
 are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.

 I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN
 environment yet, but soon~  zvol has been there from zfs for a
 while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the
 closest I'd trust it in production yet.
 
 Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting
 but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for
 anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by
 and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(.
 
 Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem.

Exactly.  What puzzles me is that Oracle released BTRFS under GPL.
Oracle now owns ZFS as well.  Why aren't they GPL'ing ZFS for full
inclusion in Linux, and filesystem licensing consistency?  Do they fear
this eroding SPARC box sales?  Other market forces have almost killed
SPARC already so I can't see that as a legitimate concern.  Ellison
obviously has some $$ reason for not GPL'ing ZFS, whether based in
market reality or not.

-- 
Stan
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


Re: [Samba] Code? or Test Pattern?

2011-06-26 Thread Kenji Ichinoseki

Hi Volker.

The response became late.


Why is it necessary to use old Samba? Size? License?


Yes, a license is a thing which must be GPLv2.
Although modification is contained in the source code (source code of
GPLv3) after 3.0x, it cannot use on the problem of a license.

Kenji
--
Kenji Ichinoseki (ichinos...@sei-networks.com)


At 11/06/24  18:35, Volker Lendecke wrote:

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:23:11PM +0900, Kenji Ichinoseki wrote:
 Again, I would highly recommend using a much later version
 of Samba than 3.0.37. Many, many fixes have been made, in
 particular for compatibility to more modern Windows
 releases.

 Since it is necessary to use surely old samba, it corresponds.
 # New samba will be used at a my house. :-p

Why is it necessary to use old Samba? Size? License?

Volker

--
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 G\x8B\xD5tingen
phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9
AG G\x8B\xD5tingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen



-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Christ Schlacta

On 6/26/2011 15:13, Jeremy Allison wrote:

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote:

ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to
deploy it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing
for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs
are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.

I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN
environment yet, but soon~  zvol has been there from zfs for a
while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the
closest I'd trust it in production yet.

Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting
but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for
anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by
and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(.

Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem.

Jeremy.
just requires some special consideration.  I still install through 
apt-get install, and it works flawlessly.  it's much like a lot of 
driver packages where you still have to compile them to make them work, 
it just does it auto-magically.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


Re: [Samba] filesystem of choice?

2011-06-26 Thread Christ Schlacta

On 6/26/2011 17:18, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

On 6/26/2011 5:13 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 01:09:38AM -0700, Christ Schlacta wrote:

ZFSonLinux is very nearly production ready, and I'm preparing to
deploy it soon on a home server.  Just a few minor niceties missing
for now, but all the essential features are in place, and the bugs
are only trickling in and nothing major's come up in a while.

I'd certainly not trust it to a ~100TB multi server multi SAN
environment yet, but soon~  zvol has been there from zfs for a
while, so if you want xfs on ZFS in your environment, that's the
closest I'd trust it in production yet.

Is this the ZFS port to the Linux kernel ? If so it's interesting
but rather limiting as the CDDL license makes it impossible for
anyone to distribute as a combined work - rules out adoption by
and Linux distros or commercial entities for example :-(.

Shame, really does seem like a nice filesystem.

Exactly.  What puzzles me is that Oracle released BTRFS under GPL.
Oracle now owns ZFS as well.  Why aren't they GPL'ing ZFS for full
inclusion in Linux, and filesystem licensing consistency?  Do they fear
this eroding SPARC box sales?  Other market forces have almost killed
SPARC already so I can't see that as a legitimate concern.  Ellison
obviously has some $$ reason for not GPL'ing ZFS, whether based in
market reality or not.

they're trying to un-entrench their company in all the philanthropy, so 
they bought some stuff that wasn't encumbered with the GPL.  (my 
personal opinion on their perspective, not official in any capacity)

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba