Re: [Samba] AD DC and Fileserver
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:04:14 -0300
- From: Flávio Silveira via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] AD DC and Fileserver
On 29/08/2017 15:39, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 08:48 -0300, Flávio Silveira wrote:
On 29/08/2017 01:10, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 00:06 -0300, Flávio Silveira via samba wrote:
Hi Andrew, thanks for your quick reply!
On 28/08/2017 21:32, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 21:01 -0300, Flávio Silveira via samba wrote:
Sorry if this question is too dumb, but is it possible to
an AD and Fileserver using the same Samba (or server) or they
two separate thing?
We suggest separating them, because having them on the same server
implies you only have one AD DC, and that isn't a good idea.
Giving my first question you may know I am a novice in regards to
I've only ran Samba as workgroup and simple file server. I guess
suggestion applies to any network, no matter what size, right?
my network doesn't have more than 30 clients.
One of the reasons I suggest it is that if you ever get DB corruption,
which is very rare, it doesn't tend to replicate. It also means you
can upgrade without disrupting clients.
Yes, I just saw one case here where the guy is trying to upgrade to
4.6.7 from 4.1.7 and his db is corrupted.
Additionally, folks often wish to upgrade the AD DC on a different
schedule to the file server. I'm sure others will pile on with the
other various reasons, but this is the core of it.
Makes sense to have a spare DC and/or file server, can it be a
VM for example?
Yes, that is fine. Naturally, a larger organisation would spread it
out over more hardware, but you will know what makes sense at your
Ok, I'm thinking on focusing on the file server for now, does that need
a backup server as well or just one with backups can be enough? If one
is not the case, here is the topology I thought:
Most organisations your size don't go for a clustered Samba for a file
server, as it isn't really practical.
Ok, so one it is!
1x HDD holding the VMs
2x HDD (RAID 1) for data
file server 1 will use one of the data HDDs
file server 2 will use the other
Do you mean AD DC 1/2?
I meant file server, but as you said above it isn't really practical indeed.
I don't know if I can use RAID 1 if two distinct machines will use them,
even though they are VMs
I'm a long way from start of the art sysadmin, but for the kind of
setup you are trying, RAID 1 over 2xHDDs, an LVM PV on that, then
putting the VMs system and data partitions as logical volumes on that
PV would do fine. Remember, you are protecting against both logical
and physical corruption, the logical corruption will be confined to the
VM no matter the media, and the physical is confined (we hope) to a
disk that dies.
Your idea makes perfect sense, thank you!
If it matters, I will be using KVM, which seems to be as
close to a real machine as possible.
That should be fine. Just remember to keep taking backups with the
samba_backup script also.
Thanks for reminding me about samba_backup, does that apply for a file
server only as well?
It is structured around the AD DC. But that reminds me, I need to find
the patches someone posted to improve it. The fundamental task is to
tdbbackup each tdb before the real backup.
Understood, so for a file server I should not worry about this, correct?
Or does it work for file servers as well?
Also, should I create a new thread? Because this one was meant to see if
it was possible to run AD DC and file server from the same server, but
now I have file server related questions and I don't know if I can ask
here or on a new thread.
Off-topic: Do you still use IRC as abartlett?
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the