![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
|
(last updated 2005/2/4)
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
I do not expect to directly pursue this work further.
See Replacing/Preserving NT4 Server for rationale. CHS
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
Samba 3 PDCs
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
My experience with Samba 2 was mixed. Samba 2 seemed to fit in with
Microsoft's "workgroup" model but had pretty serious
limitations in the "domain" model. Also, in some scenarios
Samba 2 had a dramatic performance disadvantage relative to Microsoft
NT4 and Windows 2000.
The main scenarios I noticed were with directory hierarchies with many
small files.
For example, archiving a Visual Source Safe "database",
approximately l00MB total, would take tens of minutes to archive when
stored on a Windows server and several hours to archive when stored on a
Samba 2 server.
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
Samba 3 comes much closer to adequately addressing the domain model.
Once configured properly, a Samba 3 server seems to be a fully capable
PDC, with one glaring exception: no provision for BDCs. Samba 3 does not
implement BDC capability.
A Samba 3 PDC will not interface properly with an NT4 BDC.
(I've seen claims that Samba 3 performance is superior to that of
Microsoft products, but have not explored performance.)
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
So what is the Samba strategy for handling PDC outage?
It seems to be to have multiple instances of Samba PDCs, synchronized
with LDAP.
I have only begun to try to make this work.
I'm skeptical for a variety of reasons, but trying to restrain my
skepticism until I've given this strategy a fair and full evaluation.
|
|
![pixel](https://technologists.com/images/img_clear_dot.gif)
|