[Samba] samaba 4 vs active directory

[Ahmed Khalil]

Hello Sir ;

I am very interested for samba 4 news and want to run it in production environment to replace active directory
But first I appreciate if you could help me to get comparison between active directory feature and samba feature that working correctly
I mean if I go to samba which feature may I lose or still have bugs
Thanks in advance

Kind regards,
Ahmed Hassanean Khalil
Customer Service Engineer
Summit Technology Solutions
End of Nasr City Road.- Katameya Tunnel - Investment Area
Postal Code: 12411 - Cairo - EGYPT

Dir.: +202-2759-7000
Office: +202-2759-7000
Mobile: +012-8311-3388
Fax: 202-2759-7575

ahmed....@summit-mea.com
www.summit-mea.com
Disclaimer

This communication is intended for the above named person(s) and is confidential and / or legally privileged. Any opinion(s) expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of the STS. If it has come to you in error you must take no action based upon it, nor must you print it, copy it, forward it, or show it to anyone. Please delete and destroy the e-mail and any attachments and inform the sender immediately. Thank you.
STS is not responsible for the political, religious, racial or partisan opinion in any correspondence conducted by its domain users. Therefore, any such opinion expressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in any said correspondence is not to be interpreted as that of STS.

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

[Marc Muehlfeld]

Hello Ahmed,

Am 13.10.2014 um 19:51 schrieb Ahmed Khalil:
> I am very interested for samba 4 news and want to run it in production
> environment to replace active directory But first I appreciate if
> you could help me to get comparison between active directory feature
> and samba feature that working correctly I mean if I go
> to samba which feature may I lose or still have bugs

There's no feature comparisation list or something like that.

Many things are working great and it really depents on the features you
expect from an AD forest. The easiest is, if you would tell us your
requirements and we can say if it's working or what the current state of
the feature is.


Regards,
Marc

[Ahmed Khalil]

Hello Marc;
Thanks a lot for your replay and sorry for delayed response
I really found below comparison on samba 4 wiki but I can see that it was not updated if you can just check below link and tell me if there is update for comparison in the link or not
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba/Status

Thanks in advance


Kind regards,
Ahmed Hassanean Khalil
Customer Service Engineer
Summit Technology Solutions

[Marc Muehlfeld]

Hello Ahmed,

Am 21.10.2014 um 01:28 schrieb Ahmed Khalil:
> Thanks a lot for your replay and sorry for delayed response
> I really found below comparison on samba 4 wiki but I can see
> that it was not updated if you can just check below link and
> tell me if there is update for comparison in the link or not
> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba/Status

This page isnt' really maintained.


I can only suggest again:

[Klaus Hartnegg]

On 13.10.2014 19:51, Ahmed Khalil wrote:
> I go to samba which feature may I lose or still have bugs

no sysvol replication
no domain trust
no domain based DFS
no DFR

[Klaus Hartnegg]

On 13.10.2014 19:51, Ahmed Khalil wrote:

> I go to samba which feature may I lose or still have bugs

Basic functions work, extended features not:
- SYSVOL is not replicated.
- Domain-Trust works only in one direction.
- DFS works only in stand-alone mode, not domain-based.
- DFS-R is not implemented.
- RODC is not fully implemented.
- Cluster filesystems destroy TDB files, must use CTDB instead.
- but CTDB does not work on AD-DC.
- Winbind does not work on DCs.

And many Linux distributions still do not support it well:
- Samba on Fedora/Redhat/CentOS does not support AD-DC mode.
- Samba on Ubuntu does not have CTDB (i.e. no cluster support).
- Sernet does not offer a package for CentOS 7, only for 6.

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

Just out of curiosity, why on Debian/Ubuntu, they don't enable CTDB? I
mean, what is the difficulty of doing that? Any special reason?!

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

And... Does EnterpriseSamba for Debian/Ubuntu comes with CTDB?!

[Harry Jede]

On 11:41:21 wrote Martinx - ジェームズ:

> Just out of curiosity, why on Debian/Ubuntu, they don't enable CTDB?
> I mean, what is the difficulty of doing that? Any special reason?!

ctdb 2.5.3 is in wheezy-backports
I have never tried it.

--

Regards
Harry Jede

[steve]

On 22/10/14 02:19, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, why on Debian/Ubuntu, they don't enable CTDB? I
> mean, what is the difficulty of doing that? Any special reason?!

Hi
Samba on Ubuntu does not come with clustering support. So even if you do
install CTDB, it will not work. You have to build at least samba from
source.
HTH,
Steve

[Harry Jede]

On 18:27:40 wrote steve:

> On 22/10/14 02:19, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, why on Debian/Ubuntu, they don't enable
> > CTDB? I mean, what is the difficulty of doing that? Any special
> > reason?!
>
> Hi
> Samba on Ubuntu does not come with clustering support. So even if you
> do install CTDB, it will not work. You have to build at least samba
> from source.
> HTH,
> Steve

FYI
Debian should do it

# smbd -b|grep -i cluster
CLUSTER_SUPPORT
# smbd -V
Version 4.1.11-Debian

--

Regards
Harry Jede

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

That's cool!!

Unfortunately, I'm using Samba 4.1.11 on Ubuntu 14.04 (backported from
Utopic), packages from Debian but, still no CLUSTER_SUPPORT.

---
root@file-1:~# smbd -V
Version 4.1.11-Ubuntu

root@file-1:~# smbd -b | grep -i cluster

root@file-1:~# dpkg -l | grep samba-common
ii samba-common
2:4.1.11+dfsg-1ubuntu2~ubuntu14.04.1~ppa1 all common files used
by both the Samba server and client
ii samba-common-bin
2:4.1.11+dfsg-1ubuntu2~ubuntu14.04.1~ppa1 amd64 Samba common files
used by both the server and the client
---

Time to try Debian!

Tks!
Thiago

[Min Wai Chan]

so there aren't any 4.1.12 on ubuntu with ctdb support :(

that is bad...

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagoc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's cool!!