Slashdot Mirror


Samba Success in the Enterprise?

gunnk asks: "We've deployed a Samba server here to replace some aging Novell Netware boxes. It works great: fast, secure, stable. However, we have one VIP that feels that Samba is 'amateur' software and that we should be buying Windows servers. I've been searching with little success for large Samba deployments in Enterprise environments. Anyone out there care to share stories of places that are happily running large Samba installations for their file servers? Or not so happy, for that matter — better to be informed!"

149 comments

  1. Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by thewiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    called Google?

    Probably not.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by rm_-fr_* · · Score: 3, Informative

      For what it is worth, I don't have so much a story as to who is using Samba but rather who is "shipping" it in enterprise products. I work for an HP partner and HP has a product I can vouch for called "HP StorageWorks Enterprise File Services Clustered Gateway". Basically a NAS box on steroids. It comes in two flavors: Windows and Linux. Both serve CIFS...you do the math...

    2. Re:Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That doesn't help if Google doesn't have a document detailing their installation, problems they ran in to (and how they solved them), and re-evaluated the business case for using Samba over the alternatives. That's what he's looking for, documentation.

      Just saying "well Google uses it!" is a terrible strategy. First it makes it look as if you're out of ideas and just spouting out company names as a last resort, and secondly because saying "Google uses it!" could mean the janitors at Google use it to check off which bathrooms are clean.

    3. Re:Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell does SWAT still make you send the ROOT PASSWORD over an HTTP channel? This has seriously got to change.

    4. Re:Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This has seriously got to change."

      We are anxiously waiting for your code to implement it.

      Yours faithfully
      AT

    5. Re:Has your VIP ever heard of a little company... by bgomes · · Score: 1

      I'm working for the biggest latin america company. And we are running Samba to share 2.000 printers used by more than 20.000 users integrated with AD. Is this a good case?

  2. Sure, we use it by wiggles · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work in a Fortune 500 Media company, and with our mixed environment -- Sun, Linux, Windows, Mac -- we use Samba quite extensively for workflow. It works great, it's stable, and it makes our lives so much easier when we have to mass migrate files between the different platforms.

    1. Re:Sure, we use it by fhage · · Score: 5, Funny
      Don't listen to Linux zealots. Samba will bankrupt your company. Best to purchase lots of new MS servers.

      -with love,

      your competitors.

    2. Re:Sure, we use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using it here at a US government agency on several servers that I'm aware of. No problems I've ever noticed (I'm an end user here, not an IT person).

    3. Re:Sure, we use it by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

      You get the "-1, Douchebag" mod for using the word 'workflow'.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    4. Re:Sure, we use it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You get the "-1, Douchebag" mod for using the word 'workflow'.

      You get "-1, Prattler" for failing to offer an effective suggested replacement.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. samba for the corporation by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using samba for the last 12 years in various guises, if there ever was a problem then
    it usually was that I did not upgrade the software often enough because *it just works*.

    That in my eyes is the best feature any software package can have, that it is so reliable
    you forget you have it.

    As for it being 'amateur' software, amateur to me spells motivation and the quality level
    of the samba software reflects that dedication quite well.

    Better than the 9-5 code monkeys products by a long shot most of the time.

    OSS is the future, better believe it.

  4. Samba used by 500 developers by losman · · Score: 1, Informative

    In our corporate environment we use Samba to share resources that reside in our AIX environment. It has been in use for 4+ years and 500+ developers that are baning away at it all day long. We have not had a single issue with the software. And to boot it is supported by IBM from both a hardware and software support perspective. Your VIP is simply wrong or misinformed.

    --
    Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
  5. I work for a Fortune 500... we use Samba by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We use it on my site. In fact we have about 2000+ users who use it every day.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  6. Another big company... by rossifer · · Score: 4, Informative

    AOL/Time-Warner enormously relies on linux and Samba all over the place. This may or may not help your case depending on what your boss thinks of AOL as a company...

    Ross

    1. Re:Another big company... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can at least vouch for this Turner company that I work for (subdivision of TW). It's not exclusively anything, but a lot of our storage servers are NOT running Windows, but most of our desktops are. Figure it out. So there are Linux/Samba servers, but there's Samba running on other platforms, too.

      I even think we had some SGI's running samba a few years ago...

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Another big company... by Curtman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Maybe he should point this VIP at the history of samba. Apparently Microsoft didn't think it was too amateurish to use his work when they implemented windows file sharing.

      On the newsgroup among the discussions of my server someone had mentioned that there was a free client that might work with my server that Microsoft had put up for ftp. I downloaded it and found to my surprise that it worked first time with my `pathworks' server! -- Andrew Tridgell (of the Samba team)

    3. Re:Another big company... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Maybe he should point this VIP"

      Maybe he should find a higher VIP just to point the case as it is, not as it seems.

      Per the notice we are not talking here about "evaluating Samba as a replacement"; Samba is *already* working and working "great: fast, secure, stable", but a VIP thinks is "amateurish".

      What we should say about a manager that on purpouse forgets *facts* in favour of *opinions*? Maybe it's time to restudy if the company is making a good deal paying big cash to such a person.

      Not to talk about that other little detail: Next time a (say) comercial executive feels she is in charge of technical choices, maybe a technician should decide the marketing strategy for the company.

  7. It might help by Sciros · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can imagine samba making the workplace feel a little more-upbeat, what with the 1..a-2..3..a-4 rhythm that makes you want to shake that booty. It can definitely keep folks awake at their workstations, which would boost productivity. Plus it would give everything a more Brazilian feel, which will help people forget that in fact outside it's all icy and cold. So, yes, I could definitely see samba being successful in enterprise.

    Paso Doble not so much. Spanish Gypsy can get quite annoying after a while.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:It might help by LehiNephi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ach, of all the times NOT to have mod points. Props for even getting the rhythm correct!

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:It might help by Intron · · Score: 1

      Obrigado!

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:It might help by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "Plus it would give everything a more Brazilian feel, which will help people forget that in fact outside it's all icy and cold."

      I 'm brazilian, and out there it is 30C (AKA 86F). No need for a warm feeling, your insensitive cloud. (But samba is welkome...)

  8. HHS in DC. by TheBeardIsRed · · Score: 3, Informative

    Department of health and human services (office of families) uses it to serve all of the files to their webservers.

    1. Re:HHS in DC. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Someone needs to tell them what NFS is.

    2. Re:HHS in DC. by TheBeardIsRed · · Score: 1

      no, thats democracy in action / wired for change where i work.

  9. Samba by MindStalker · · Score: 1, Funny

    Technically yes, as Samba is based on SMB it is amateur. You should be looking towards something more like NFS or other tried and true Unix solutions. :)

    1. Re:Samba by forsetti · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agreed -- try OpenAFS. More complex, but scales well.

      --
      10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
    2. Re:Samba by mac-diddy · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a pure kerberos or PLAIN+TLS SMB to AFS translator up and running? I love AFS, but it would be nice if users didn't have to install any extra software just to access their files.

    3. Re:Samba by forsetti · · Score: 1

      Why bother? Once you setup an SMB gateway, you lose almost all of the AFS functionality. You'd be limited to SMB ACLs, no client-server fault tolerance, no client initiated PT/DB balancing, etc. What do you gain over plain Samba?

      --
      10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
    4. Re:Samba by mac-diddy · · Score: 1

      We already have AFS deployed and want to provide simple, file level access without requiring software to be installed on the client. We're not trying to replicate AFS, just make it easier for people to access what's there. Users that need everything that AFS has to offer would be directed to the full AFS client.

  10. It's in the military... by RingDev · · Score: 3, Informative

    Our network guys used a Samba machine for at least one file share server that I knew of at HQMC. That was a number of years ago now. I know my college (a MS certified partner) used it and it was used heavily in a number of our networking and security classes.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  11. sounds like your vp is an amateur! by guysmilee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sounds like your vp is an amateur and should be replaced with 'anyone' else!

  12. Huh? What? by Knara · · Score: 1

    However, we have one VIP that feels that Samba is 'amateur' software and that we should be buying Windows servers.

    Someone needs to tell your VIP to STFU and let the IT people do their jobs without him sticking his nose in. He's probably pushing it just so he can try to get some kickbacks from his friend Bob, who happens to be an MS sales rep.

  13. We serve about 1000 computers with it by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have several samba servers that serve 3000 users and almost 1000 computers, from Windows 98 to XP. It works well and only ever gives us problems when LDAP (OpenLDAP is tempermental) has a problem. We've used Samba since the 2.2 days in production. We're looking forward to Samba 4 to get ActiveDirectory-style domains. NT domains work fine, but are clunky. Only our lab machines are on a domain. The rest of the machines either just have local accounts with network drives mapped, or have pGina logins that map the drives for the user.

    For many enterprises, Samba isn't enough. They require the management aspects of ActiveDirectory. Fortunately Samba 4 will do all that. Plus I have yet to integrate Vista into our system. Promises to be a nightmare I think.

    This stigma your VP has is quite common, and no amount of evidence or arguing will change his mind, likely. Stubborn ignorance. The world is slowly changing, but I think it's as the truly ignorant people die off.

    1. Re:We serve about 1000 computers with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Plus I have yet to integrate Vista into our system. Promises to be a nightmare I think....

      I found this on Wikipedia Samba page....Cheers

    2. Re:We serve about 1000 computers with it by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Vista seems to work with Samba fine, at least for what I used it for. I went to a LAN party Wednesday, and had my Linux laptop's network shares accessed by a Vista machine on the network, with no issues.

      Yeah, yeah, not exactly "Enterprise" activity, but still...

    3. Re:We serve about 1000 computers with it by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The world is slowly changing, but I think it's as the truly ignorant people die off.

      Logically, then, the solution to improving the rate of progress has less to do with R&D investment than it does with placing more truly ignorant people at the bottom of the nearest large body of water.

      I have some recommendations.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Samba is A-OK! by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever since it started to talk to Active Directory domain servers, it was perfect for the office. Before that it was great, but lacked the key feature to allow it to get accepted properly.

  15. Every Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My infrastructure is responsible for transactions totaling over 18 billion USD a day, and we use Samba.

    /my identity withheld to protect...well, me

  16. Just ask Novell...... by Lxy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've deployed a Samba server here to replace some aging Novell Netware boxes

    So at some point, this VIP probably trusted Novell. Since Novell is putting all it's effort into OES linux (which ships with Samba, not to mention employed Jeremy Allison for awhile), I bet they'd have an opinion on the subject.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  17. It just works. by CDarklock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Samba is every bit as good as anything else for running a file server, and if you're setting your file servers up correctly, nobody will know or care what they're running. They either work or they don't.

    I would still recommend that you use Windows, because I'm at Microsoft. We like people to use Windows. You should use Windows more often. You should install it on everything. I'd be happy to explain how you could do the same things you already do with more Windows licenses. But it's sort of your job to think about what's best for your company, not ours.

    --
    Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    1. Re:It just works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone there had that attitude, think what a better company Microsoft would be.

    2. Re:It just works. by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more, system administration is about offering something that works and is best for your company.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    3. Re:It just works. by Coniptor · · Score: 1

      Wheee!
      2 points for self serving honesty!

  18. We use it too...On the Enterprise by nebaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear they use it on the Excelsior as well. It's a great little secret weapon, let's hope the Klingons don't get it.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:We use it too...On the Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back! Back to the Trek convention where you belong! Be gone!

  19. I say go with what works best for the task. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Informative

    On my network, SAMBA is doing a better job as a server than what I've managed using Microsoft products as a server. I'd hate to cling to something or avoid something just because of a prejudiced notion. Apparently, you're already using it successfully. I suppose the only way to argue with good results is to make emotion-based nitpicks on the methodology.

  20. It isn't the software... by guruevi · · Score: 0

    It's the protocol, and he's darn right, you should be migrating away from it to a more open protocol like NFS or (S)FTP.

    But putting it on Microsoft servers isn't a good answer either, Unix boxes have done it for years and are still good at it. If he's looking for simple and cheap, he shouldn't be looking at Microsoft, but at Apple. They have both software and hardware for cheap and large deployments and has seamless support for more than 5 protocols at the same time, with the same credentials.

    And by the way, he's a VIP? Shouldn't that be a VP, they usually have no other information than what some marketing drone tells him. And I think he has some good intentions for his own wallet if he has been 'convinced' by Microsoft.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:It isn't the software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's the protocol, and he's darn right, you should be migrating away from it to a more open protocol like NFS"

      Since you seem to know what you are talking about, could you please point me to an stable, Linux-based NFS server which won't allow for client-side identity checking? (I'm root on my box so NFSv3 isn't good enough for us).

    2. Re:It isn't the software... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      NFSv4 with Kerberos and LIPKEY. There ya go... much more secure, and faster too, my own experience tells me that it can easily go 50% faster compared to the same data over SMB.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  21. Loving it over here by binner1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm servicing 3 computer labs consisting of roughly 100 workstations here, all with a Samba/Linux backend. I have nothing but praise for Samba and would highly recommend it to anyone. I have some native clients and some that are housed in a vmware image. I have cross platform printing, cross platform credentials (thanks to password sync) and cross platform ~/. What's not to like?

    The only downside is that until v4 hits the streets, we can't do full AD. We could of course get around this by dropping in a single 2k3 box to be the DC, but we'd like to avoid that if possible. I'm really looking forward to v4, as AD is one of the good things MS has done, imo (standards adherence aside)!

    -Ben

    1. Re:Loving it over here by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "AD is one of the good things MS has done, imo"

      As long as Samba 4 doesn't do AD LIKE Microsoft has done it, i.e., ridiculously complicated horseshit...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:Loving it over here by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Active directory? That'd be the LDAP directory, with the 'microsoft compliance' wouldn't it?

      Seriously, much like Microsoft TCP/IP, LDAP was OK before the beast of Redmond shat upon it.

    3. Re:Loving it over here by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      If you think AD is nothing more than a shitty LDAP server/DB, you obviously don't have much of anything to do with it.

      Not that it doesn't have its share of shittiness, but it's 1.) Actually a Great Idea for managing a network and 2.) Just an LDAP server like Windows is just the Registry.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    4. Re:Loving it over here by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      As long as Samba 4 doesn't do AD LIKE Microsoft has done it, i.e., ridiculously complicated horseshit...

      Huh ? Compared to what, is AD "ridiculously complicated" ?

    5. Re:Loving it over here by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Compared to what?

      Almost anything...

      Just as an example, try moving AD objects using the command line tools provided.

      Ridiculous.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:Loving it over here by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Just as an example, try moving AD objects using the command line tools provided.

      Your problem is that you're trying to manage Windows infrastructure like you would UNIX infrastructure.

    7. Re:Loving it over here by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      It ain't my problem.

      Try moving tons of AD objects with the GUI - you'll switch to the command line - which is what those CLI tools are FOR.

      And they're ridiculous - not to mention I've been told some of them don't work properly...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:Loving it over here by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Yeah, efficiently. No hope of that being possible. Microsoft means full employment for low-level admins.

  22. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samba also ships with OS X!

  23. Enterprise scale deployment by SWood · · Score: 5, Informative

    We have a project inside IBM called the Global Storage Architecture that provides enterprise file system service. There are currently over 95K users on GSA with over 143TB of used space, spread across 39 installations on 5 continents.

    There are several different ways to connect to GSA File depending on the platform and application, but Samba is used for connecting the Windows clients, of which there are tens of thousands. In addition to general office productivity, many of these clients are doing hardware design and software development.

    You can read an account of GSA File in appendix B of the Implementing NFSv4 in the Enterprise: Planning and Migration Strategies Redbook. The appendix is oriented toward the NFS aspects of the service, but you can still get a good idea of what is going on.

    http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246657 .html

    1. Re:Enterprise scale deployment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you telling me that I can mount GSA as nfs4? I just got my non-standard Linux onto GSA in the past few weeks, but it's mounted as nfs3. CAn you point to documentation on how to convert?

  24. Fuck him by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Roll out Windows and make damned sure his name is attached to the project. Call it the "$VIPNAME project". Make sure you replace all of the Samba boxes in your enterprise. By the end of the projected he'll be well and truly fucked over. It'll be a salutary lesson to VP's the world over.

    Samba is used all over the place. All the FTSE 100's I've been at have used it.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Fuck him by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a chance... No one ever got fired for buying IBM I mean Microsoft.
      They are the standard and the largest software company in the world so their stuff has to work. If it fails it was because IT messed up.

      This post has nothing to do with facts, just reality.
      And not they are not the same thing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Fuck him by darkonc · · Score: 1

      They are the standard and the largest software company in the world so their stuff has to work. If it fails it was because IT messed up. Not quite -- If Microsoft's shit stinks, then IT will get blamed for it because "obviously a company like Microsoft wouldn't do anything that stupid....".

      I'd just tell him: "Novell, IBM, Google, HP and Time/Warner (among others) use it is that serious enough for you?".

      He'll probably call you on the Novell name-dropping, so I'd have some extra documention on what Novell is doing with Samba.

      If that's not enough for him, then I'd ask (publicly, but politely) for what sort of use would satisfy him. Tell him that if there's something he knows about Samba that you don't you need to know about it so that you can respond to it.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    3. Re:Fuck him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go a step further. Say "OK, Mr. VIP, I'll make you a deal. If you really think you know better than an IT expert you pay $XX,XXX a year, who has X years of experience, we'll do it your way. I'll only attach one condition - your name will be all over this project. It will be the "Mr. VIP Project." We'll name the servers after you. You'll sign off on every expense and work order, and every piece of correspondance I create will mention "The wonderful guidance Mr. VIP has given this project.""

      "If you believe you know that much better than I do, Mr. VIP, you won't object to the idea at all. Otherwise, please let me get on with my job."

    4. Re:Fuck him by Anonymous+Cowled · · Score: 1

      Not a chance... No one ever got fired for buying IBM I mean Microsoft.

      i dunno... if you were a sysadmin who worked for apple...
  25. Re:Huh? What? by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 1

    I suggest telling the intern doing this. He was already going to be fired as soon as it was found out he's porking the VIP's daughter.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
  26. Can't be an amature if you're getting paid by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And there is a host of companies out there getting paid to do Samba support:
    http://us1.samba.org/samba/support/us.html

  27. Smart by tsa · · Score: 1

    ... calling your colleague an amateur.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  28. Personal experience by rlp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've used Samba at home for about eight years with a Linux file / print server. The server uses RAID1. The only time it's been down is:

    1) Changing hardware (including replacing drives with bigger drives).
    2) Changing entire server (replacing with faster box and previous drives).
    3) Power failure & UPS battery had died.

    Right now it's serving files to four Windows boxes including storing video for a PVR.

    Not that a home installation will mean anything to your VP.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Personal experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great place to hide your pr0n stash too... map a network drive with access from only your account name. Unless your S.O. is a linux type too :P

    2. Re:Personal experience by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wasn't going to share my own experience since it's not exactly fortune 500 either. I've never deployed samba to a network of more than about 70 people. But both when I did that, and years prior when I lived at The Marshmallow Peanut Circus (now defunct but was a geek house in santa cruz) I used a combination of linux with NFS, Samba, and netatalk to serve the same files to Unix, Windows, and Macintosh clients. The first time I set it up I was a total noob and it wasn't particularly hard and it was very reliable. The second time I was much less of a noob, and it was still easy :) More to the point I never EVER had any problems with it... but this was before active directory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Personal experience by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I've used Samba at home..."

      Quite convincing argument against an accusation of being "amateur".

    4. Re:Personal experience by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
      Perhaps...but, then again... Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is, whom is the amatuer? If the geeks, who are forced to use Microsoft products at work, choose, for their own personal use, to use a product because they like it, then maybe there's much to be said about that. I use samba, only for my own network (1 XP box, 1 slackware (source code server), 1 Mac and 1 BSD based firewall - and a whole slew of VM's), but I'd stack my flexability, uptime, security, and scalibility against this VP's ideal network any day of the week. My point being, if the geeks are using it, there's a reason - and price has nothing to do with it; check our average salaries.

      Not to get off on a rant here, but, we (geeks) use software every day. We have RSS feeds from freshmeat, sourceforge, softpedia, codeplex (M.S., BTW), and we know what is out there and what works. We know what is tried and true, as we have encountered many setups, networks, situations, and problems. We have learned from our newbie mistakes and have taken that knowledge forth. It isn't about an idealogy, as such, it's about experience. We know what works and what doesn't, and we choose to use what works best for any given situation based on a very simple principle. Flexibility and complexity are usually at the opposite ends of the spectrum, working against each other. Small and simple is beautiful. We've all seen how complex systems fail in complex ways.

      I'm not saying that Microsoft products don't have a place - I know an IT manager for a largish bank who only uses Cisco and Microsoft across the board for, mostly, a single reason. He says that with the ways that banks buy each other out, and how frequent the changes happen, he constantly has new infrastructure that must be grafted in. His best solution is 1 OS vendor, and 1 network vendor that he can get support for at any moment using a template that doesn't change. It works for him.

      However, geeks choose to use samba because experience has taught us that it's fast, reliable, slim and small. The eyes of many, many, a hacker have looked over the code and made it better. We choose not to use Windows servers because we don't like waiting for a zero day patch tuesday next month, which will require us to reboot the server. We don't want to be locked in and forced to upgrade to version .7 software because our OS is no longer being supported. If we need to fix something, we'll code it, since we have the source for samba. It just works, and we don't have to worry about securing an interface that we forgot about. We don't worry about script kiddies having a VB script with a nice GUI to help them break in to our file server. They'll probably have to compile some C code before even beginning to expoit a vulnerability. And, lastly, the simplicity of the design acknowledges the seperation of concerns that Microsoft bunches together with API bungee cords into a horrifying series of interfaces that all rely on each other in such a way that a failure goes across the board.

      If geeks choose to use a product, perhaps the VP's should ask themselves why we do so and what we know that they don't. Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. Feel free to flame.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  29. Re:Huh? What? by allscan · · Score: 1

    That wouldn't happen to be the same Bob from those Enzyte commercials would it?

  30. Linksys network storage (NSLU2) by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Linksys consumer-level network storage controller, NSLU2, is embedded linux + samba. This box looks like a Windows shared drive and has to interoperate with different flavors of windows without configuration. (The web interface just allows you to create and name volumes, add users, etc.)

    It's weird to compare a $100 box with enterprise-scale problems, but embedded software has to be 100% reliable since you can't issue patches or administer the box later if there's a problem.

    (BTW the box is also linux friendly, both flashed applications and booting to a HD-based Debian system. I have one at home.)

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Linksys network storage (NSLU2) by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Buffalo LinkStation line of storage devices are the same way. Embedded Linux and Samba.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  31. Novell OES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Novell will sell you "professional" Samba servers to replace your aging servers.

  32. 167 employees and growing... by GweeDo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for a small/medium size business with around 167 employees. We have locations in Plainville KS, Hays KS, Chicago IL, Pasadena CA, and New York City NY. We use Samba for network file shares in all these locations. It works great in a mixed Linux, WinXP, Mac OS X environment. We haven't ever had any issues with it what so ever.

    1. Re:167 employees and growing... by raddan · · Score: 1

      I second the medium-sized-business-using-Samba bit. I have 250 or so users hitting a Samba box, actually running on the Mac OS. What this setup gave us was flexibility-- we are able to share out AFP in addition to SMB and not worry about file-locking (Netatalk uses POSIX locks and Samba has its own locking mechanism, so you can't just throw them together) and HFS+ metadata. The very, very nice thing is that we were able to make the switch and keep the whole thing completely quiet from the corporate overlords (we have the blessings of the prez of our company to do this kind of stuff); they never noticed the difference.

      The one downside is that, at least with Apple's implementation, we've found that there are (or were) some reliability issues with the AD-OpenDirectory plugin that Apple supplies. It had trouble scaling past 25 users. They may have fixed that particular problem, but since our current setup is working, I'm not terribly eager to go back and try it again.

      Samba is very responsive, even for very large shares, and I basically don't worry about it. It's a nice change from the Windows box that it replaced. Oh, and the fact that I can also SSH/SCP into this box is a nice bonus.

  33. Samba is cool, but a NetApp is better... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone out there care to share stories of places that are happily running large Samba installations for their file servers? Or not so happy, for that matter -- better to be informed!"

    We support about 6500 engineers here at the rocket ranch. Back at the turn of the century, we wanted to migrate everybody from expensive-to-maintain *nix workstations to vastly cheaper Windows PCs, but we had a problem: all our data was on several dozen HP N-class data servers. We do serious 3D CAD and FEA, with engineering data sets measured in dozens of terabytes. We wanted to leverage the performance and economy of fast, cheap X86 boxen while not losing our investment in our storage management infrastructure. My IT masters had never heard of samba, and were amazed when I demonstrated how easy it was to serve out a Pro/E drawing to an engineer working at one of our brand new 1 GHz NT4 PCs (I told you it was at the turn of the century.) We deployed it sitewide in 2000, and even now, seven years later, my users still thank me for making it possible for them to use fast PCs to access their Unix-based data sets. We ran samba on SunOS boxes, because we never could get it to play nice with HPUX. Samba is ridiculously easy to install, manage, and maintain, especially with one of the GUI frontends that are readily available. We used SWAT, and it rocked. Samba was a great intermediate enabler, allowing us to continue to use our N class servers while we were moving our user base to PCs.

    In 2003, however, we acquired a bunch of Network Appliance servers, and migrated off our HPUX and Sun data servers. NetApp filers are platform agnostic; if the client is a *nix box, the filer presents the data as an NFS mount. If the client is Windows, it looks like NTFS. NetApps aren't cheap, but they were worth the major investment. If your company doesn't want to shell out for a filer, then samba is very viable and I recommend it highly.
    1. Re:Samba is cool, but a NetApp is better... by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      I have to "Ditto" the NetApp's.

      Everyone else's "snapshot" solutions are total crap compared to NetApp's. EMC? Way more expensive, slower, more complicated for no reason, and snapshots suck (we have both EMC and NetApp.)

      But yeah, they are expensive. Samba works great too, and is used by hundreds of Windows clients to access 15T of data on the EMC. The only downtime is to install security patches. Samba is WAY less expensive than EMC's NAS, and way easier to configure.

    2. Re:Samba is cool, but a NetApp is better... by dizzy8578 · · Score: 1

      While this is true.. A note on cost.

      Ya have to have the burning need to pay high prices for the difference. I have two netapps in my garage.
        1) from 1996 with 16 2g drives and 8 4g drives. I am taking apart the drives as I need magnets for another project. Cost in 1996? 55,000.00

      2) The replacement for the previous box bought in 2001 (shortly before the CEO is caught with his financial pants down) I fire it up occasionally for short term storage. 16 36g drives. Cost? 78,000.00. As far as I know Netapp got burned in the bankruptcy proceedings... (ouch)

      I have no idea of the current prices but unless you feel the perceived value is higher with the netapp for your application, the cost is gonna be a barrier to many.

      I will be building a backup / file storage device for a small business with very large files and I don't see any reason why the Samba/Linux combo will not be the best for them.

      YMMV.

      --
      *"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
    3. Re:Samba is cool, but a NetApp is better... by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Netapps today are far beyond where they were 5 and 10 years ago. It's truly enterprise class storage, with enterprise features and performance. You don't get those features with a Linux box and a big RAID array attached acting as a file server.

  34. your "VIP" is a clueless n00b by Yonder+Way · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Samba may have been met with trepidation like 8 years ago. The rest of the world has gotten with the program. It works. It works well. It works extremely well.

    I've implemented it at a number of Fortune 100 companies. I cannot name names due to NDA but you would recognize the names. I am contracting at one of them right now.

    For enterprise scale use, I would even contend that Samba makes a better file server to large numbers of Windows clients than running Windows on the server. Can you run Windows on an IBM pSeries 570 (16 POWER5+ processors, 128GB RAM) to serve files to ~20,000 users? I can tell you that RHEL 4 does that just fine.

    1. Re:your "VIP" is a clueless n00b by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would rephrase that as "flaming retard", but that's just me...

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
  35. Samba running fine here by div_2n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While we aren't a huge environment (50 - 75 PCs), Samba is working great for us. Running Samba 3.0.22 on Ubuntu. I've integrated authentication into our Active Directory environment (native 2003) complete with ACLs. Although it is worth pointing out that there is a very distinct difference in ACLs on Samba (POSIX ACLs) vs Windows ACLs if you are used to Windows 2000 and beyond permissions. I won't tell the whole story here, but make sure to read Samba documentation on the subject if you don't already know. The short short version is that POSIX ACLs offer a much simpler set of permissions of rwx where Windows breaks out several others. This usually isn't a big deal.

    Configuring all of the proper settings on shares can be cumbersome if you have quite a few. If you require some quick and easy GUI to do everything, Swat is a favorite. Centeris also makes a product that looks promising.

    Keep your eye on Samba 4. It will allow you to replace your Windows Active Directory servers. All in all, I'd have to say your VIP calling Samba amateur software shows either ignorance of reality or negative bias towards Samba.

  36. Run the numbers for him. by joedoc · · Score: 1

    Show him the cost of setting up a Samba server on a commodity hardware (or for that matter, existing surplus hardware that still works) versus the cost of hardware, licensing, maintenance and installation of Windows Server 2003 to do the same job. Especially after you add in the licensing. That will shut him up.

    --
    Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
    The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
    1. Re:Run the numbers for him. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe not. IT has a budget. If they don't use all that budget then next year they get less money. Money is power.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Run the numbers for him. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      If it's an enterprise client, then the cost of the hardware is moot, and you'll run the same commodity hardware for Win2K3 or Linux/Samba anyway. The data is more expensive than the machine in those cases, and you're not (at least if you're sane and like your job), going to cut corners by buying cheap hardware unless you're like Google, buy it by the metric ton, and have the skills to make it completely redundant.

      This applies, btw, if you're a one person business, or a fortune 500. Only the size of the hardware changes. (most of us, even in our geekier moments, do not buy E15Ks or p690s for personal/small-business use) Licensing costs are a real issue, but if you're going to make your CIO happy by going with a commercially supported distro (RHEL/SLES), the cost differences aren't going to be as great as you might think.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    3. Re:Run the numbers for him. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. IT has a budget. If they don't use all that budget then next year they get less money. Money is power.

      Just like need to have and nice to have, there's need to spend and nice to spend. If you can't think of enough nice things that'll get you better educated and motivated employees, more efficient business systems or just less strain on your department without making it obvious that you have too much money, you can't be thinking very far. If you seriously have that problem, take a class with the public government.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  37. another installation by statemachine · · Score: 1

    How about at a large global company? Is that good enough?

    My group in particular uses it to share files to Windows XP, 2000, 2003. The same server (Linux based) is also used for NFS for the other OSes we have. The file share is visible company-wide, since there are execs and other groups that need important files from it periodically. We generally don't have problems with it. Its current uptime is 90 days (power outage 90 days ago). The Windows servers don't even stay up for more than a couple of weeks (never mind not being able to serve to Unix and Unix-clones).

    My group is not supporting 1000 desktops all constantly mounting/reading/writing (we're not in a support role), but when it needs to work, it does, and we use it every day.

  38. Government by aaronl · · Score: 1

    A lot of government uses it. We use it in the municipality that I work for, and it does all the domain auth, file, and print serving for everything. The backend is OpenLDAP and is the authentication source for email and UNIX systems. You can do the same thing in the other direction, for the most part, if you want AD to be your auth source, but I haven't spent any time looking at it as of yet.

    If you need Active Directory style functionality, take a look at Novell eDirectory and ZenWorks. There's a few other things out there that will give you management functionality, and software deployment, such as WPKG and Mandriva Pulse.

    Also, using SAMBA doesn't mean that you *can't* be using Windows Server systems, or Active Directory. W2k3 server can still join a SAMBA controlled domain, and SAMBA can join and authenticate against an AD domain just fine. Domain trusts work, too.

  39. Even better by Dolda2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instead of quoting specific companies, how about pointing to that well known study which shows that Samba is more than twice as fast as Windows Server 2003 for SMB serving?

    1. Re:Even better by mrsbrisby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just say:

      ``That's why IBM and Google are big and profitable. Because they aren't run by you.''

      It'll either get you fired or promoted. I wouldn't want to work for that asshole either- no halfway decent manager is ever going to make you waste time and money challenging heresay.

    2. Re:Even better by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It'll either get you fired or promoted. I wouldn't want to work for that asshole either- no halfway decent manager is ever going to make you waste time and money challenging heresay.

      I didn't get promoted, but last time I talked shit like that to a manager he did get fired.

      You can only repeat yourself so many times before you can't hold in the fact that you think someone is a complete fucking idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of quoting specific companies, how about pointing to that well known study which shows that Samba is more than twice as fast as Windows Server 2003 for SMB serving?
      It's just a pity about how poorly it translates file permissions and ACLs between Windows and Unix filesystems.
  40. Re:Huh? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd have to bring that up. My wife and I both hate Bob and his defective penis.

  41. 5 terabytes of Scientific Data @ an EDU; smbldap by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Informative

    We're not as big as some enterprise customers, but we do have a 5 TB FreeBSD server which uses samba to both run our domain of analysis workstations and serve up all of that data. Someone else mentioned OpenLDAP frustrations (with which I somewhat agree). However, IDEALX's smbldap does warrant a shoutout for making things easier for so long.

  42. samba and some really happy users by SUSE_RULES · · Score: 1

    i was hired on after a merger and had to combine seven sites. dumped all that microsoft crap and installed suse servers and ipcop firewalls. i also installed a SME e-mail server and it too has performed flawlessly. god i love linux, it is really fun to be an administrator again. i had forgotten the command line (which isn't necessary) but it really is a blast. another benefit: i won't be hit by a chair (balmer's trademark).

  43. My University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently graduated from the University of Lethbridge. Has at least 5000 students, each of them has their own personal network drive for use on school computers, as well as a web drive, where any files saved there are published on their personal site at the University. How does it all function? A bank of Linux machines that use Samba. It's never been anything but reliable.

  44. We just did a similar thing by penfold69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny you should ask.

    I've just finished deploying a brand new CentOS/Samba solution to replace some ageing NT4 servers.

    We got a shiny new Dell Poweredge 2900 with 16GB Memory, twin quad-core Xeons and 8x300GB hot-swap SAS drives.

    I configured up CentOS 4.4, using Samba/OpenLDAP/Postfix/Dovecot and MySQL to provide domain, database, roaming profile and file sharing services to a workgroup of around 100 workstations running XP.

    Now we have ironed out the smaller issues with the deployment, it's absolutely rock-solid. Current uptime is 18 days, without a glitch at all. Utilisation hasn't peaked over about 20%, giving us plenty of spare capacity for expansion.

    We did consider deploying Windows Server 2003, but were put off by the price tag of the cluster of machines that was recommended to provide us with the capacity to service 100 workstations. Suffice to say that the £6k we paid was a mere fraction of the Windows alternative.

    --
    Beer Coat: The invisible but warm coat worn when walking home after a booze cruise at 3 in the morning.
    1. Re:We just did a similar thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Current uptime is 18 days"

      Wow! I'm astonished!

      Your example works for the "amaturish" case, not against it.

    2. Re:We just did a similar thing by DanAndDusty · · Score: 1

      He did say :- "I've just finished deploying a brand new CentOS/Samba solution ......."... so 18 days is quite good. I don't know about you but when a new system is put in place, I find that there are often tweaks that need to be put into place. I don't know if the 18 days is uptime for the server or for the samba daemons.. but as a techie his post actually indicates to me how simple to configure and stable a solution it is.

    3. Re:We just did a similar thing by penfold69 · · Score: 1

      Exactly that - the system went live 20 days ago, and once we had filtered out some problems with OpenLDAP, it has been completely stable since then.

      The 18 days uptime is for the Samba daemons, which needed to be restarted to fix the OpenLDAP issue. Server has been awake for 26 days now.

      Ok, it's not a huge uptime yet - however I'd like to see a newly deployed 2003 server stay up that long.

      --
      Beer Coat: The invisible but warm coat worn when walking home after a booze cruise at 3 in the morning.
    4. Re:We just did a similar thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did say :- "I've just finished deploying a brand new CentOS/Samba solution ......."

      So what? Trying to base a case choice on an experience 18 days old *is* amateurish. Even if he told me "six months" instead of "18 days" I'd still consider it being a bit amateurish on his side to expect it as a optimal experience. But 18 days? Not only amateurish but childish too.

  45. Small installation by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    5 Samba servers. A DFS root, two main file servers (2x250gb sata raid 0 each), a backup server in another room, and a spare server (our previous backup server). With DFS, rsync, and the spare I was able to upgrade the hard drives in both file servers without downtime.

    Samba got our full attention when we installed it on an old, slow, unused server and noticed that it was visibly much faster than any of our Windows file servers. Just clicking around the file shares in Windows Explorer, the difference was like night and day. One the Windows servers, directory listings would always take at least 1/2 second to display. On the Samba server, it was practically instantaneous. It was like local browsing.

    Nearly all of our downtime has been hardware related. Our old backup server suffered multiple simultaneous hard disk failures. One of our file servers suffered from failed ram, and I didn't have a replacement handy, but I was able to get it to avoid the bad parts with a kernel boot option, until I could get it replaced. There have been a couple software issues. Our spare server, at a time when we didn't need it, somehow managed to damage its MBR, booting to a blank screen after we rebooted it, but I was able to restore grub with a live CD once I figured out what it had done. I'm really not sure what was to blame for that. And we had WildFire IM server on our DFS root, and it managed to fill the hard disk with error logs one day, but that was a WildFire problem, not Samba or Linux.

    1. Re:Small installation by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      [...] two main file servers (2x250gb sata raid 0 each) [...]

      So what you're saying is neither of your fileservers have any important data on them ?

    2. Re:Small installation by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Big big typo there. Raid 1

    3. Re:Small installation by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Big typo in the first line. Not raid 0. Raid 1 on the file servers. Raid 5 on the backup server, which is kept in a locked room on the opposite end of the building. And raid 1 on the spare, which also keeps a second backup of important files. Our important databases are additionally backed up to tapes, which are stored offsite. And nightly diffs are made of our ERP database, so I could go back and find a record that was deleted say, the middle of last year if I wanted.

  46. Sun ships it with Solaris, and supports it by davecb · · Score: 2, Informative

    And they'll be happy to sell your boss as platinum support contract which includes it, so as to make it appropriaterly expensive (;-))

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  47. forget him. by wild_berry · · Score: 1

    If you're going to do the BoFH treatment, make sure that your most-certified-clueless MCSE's are on the project -- so as to lose that dead weight. ;-)

  48. Part of HP-UX by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Informative

    HP calls it CIFS Server for HP-UX, but it's really Samba.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  49. Try Webmin by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

    A few months ago I removed Fedora Core 4 (which had X) and replaced it with Ubuntu Server (no X).
    This is the only Linux box in our Windows based company - running phpBB2, media wiki, samba and port forwarding for remote desktop.

    Does it meet the needs of our business? Yes. Configuration is not easy, but that does not mean it's amateur software.

    Webmin is installed (http://www.webmin.com/) - and it allows basic configuration of Samba. Occasionally I need to use ssh to edit the config manually.

  50. SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They still use POSIX style permissions which does not work well with modern filesystem ACLs. The amount of times I have had to log into Unix to modify a file because the Windows 2003 Terminal Server says access denied. I'm like "WTF, I just created this file, now I cannot rename it?" It seems that the SAMBA team don't give a shit about modern filesystem access control lists.

    1. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Or maybe Bill doesn't give a shit about being compatible with anything or anybody who isn't paying him money?

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did your underyling filesystem support ACLs? Probably not.
      Next time, pick one that does at install time.

    3. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's me you're complaining about here, as I wrote (and maintain)
      the POSIX ACL code in Samba.

      I understand your problem, but you've got to realize there's
      nowhere on a UNIX filesystem to store that meta-data and have
      the kernel understand it.

      Sure, we can push the NT ACLs into an EA, but nothing in
      the kernel will look at that EA or even be able to make sense
      of the SIDs stored within it.

      We can do the interpretation inside Samba but this doesn't
      prevent other POSIX processes from completely ignoring
      whatever ACLs you thought you'd securely set on that file.
      NetApp can do this as they have their own kernel (based
      on FreeBSD originally) which they've hacked to understand
      these ACLs. Samba isn't a kernel, and so can't do this :-).

      NFSv4 ACLs, whilst having their own problems, are much closer
      to what we need to store full NT ACLs. Unfortunately they (a)
      break POSIX, (b) aren't yet finished on the most popular
      platorm (Linux) and (c) have no userspace API standard for
      getting to them.

      This is one of the reasons my world sucks (Microsoft DFS is
      another at the moment :-) :-).

      Your complaint is like a child screaming "I want a pony,
      I want a pony...". We *all* want a pony. Where is it going
      to live..... :-).

      Jeremy.

    4. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's me you're complaining about here, as I wrote (and maintain) the POSIX ACL code in Samba.

      I understand your problem,....

      ....Your complaint is like a child screaming "I want a pony, I want a pony...". We *all* want a pony. Where is it going to live ..... :-).
      But isn't the whole **point** supposed to be interoperatablity with NT? It's not just some pie-in-the-sky wish when people keep touting SAMBA as the replacement/alterative for much of the Windows Server technology.
    5. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're still asking for your pony without
      telling anyone where it will live.

      Samba maps Windows semantics to POSIX.
      There are some semantics you simply
      can't map onto POSIX - the Windows
      access time / create time semantics
      for example, so we simply can't
      provide these. Some POSIX semantics
      are flexible enough we can layer
      Windows on top (locking for example).

      Until the kernel gets NFSv4 ACLs
      that mean NT style ACLs can be understood
      there anything Samba does on top of
      this will not map into anything meaningful.

      There are inherent limitations in POSIX
      that mean we can't do this - yet. Luckily
      for us the UNIX/Linux standards are being
      extended so we can revisit it when they
      do.

      Jeremy.

    6. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I want a pony!!! ;-) Hey Jeremy, thanks for responding. So the next step would be to encourage kernel developers to implement something along those lines? Or is it already in the pipeline? By kernel, I presume you mean Linux? The system we currently use it Solaris. So something timely might be even less likely.

    7. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and I am sorry about the "It seems that the SAMBA team don't give a shit about modern filesystem access control lists" comment. It seems that I was very wrong.

    8. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 1

      Actually as Sun is one of the
      biggest nfsv4 fans it's more
      likely you'll see nfsv4 acls
      in Solaris than Linux (in fact
      I think it already has them in
      Solaris 10). Now I (or someone
      else) needs to write the VFS
      module to plug them in.

      IBM has already done this for
      Samba in AIX.

      Jeremy

    9. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I (or someone else) needs to write the VFS module to plug them in.
      Thanks for that. So is this something that the SAMBA team will implement? Or is that beyond the scope of the SAMBA team's objectives? What about ZFS?
    10. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 1

      Hopefully we'll get to this, but I'm in the middle
      of a major DFS code rewrite at the moment (making
      DFS work with the POSIX extensions and UNIX filename
      components containing a \ character) so it might
      take a while.

      I'd love Sun to donate this code, just like IBM
      did.....

      Jeremy.

    11. Re:SAMBA + Windows 2003 Server is shit by misterplow · · Score: 1

      If nobody else here says it, I want to just say "THANK YOU!" for all the time and effort you've put into this. SAMBA has made my life _so_ much easier.

  51. Large University Deployment Solaris + Samba by midian_va · · Score: 3, Informative

    we have over 10,000 users (students/faculty/staff) with home directories on a single sparc solaris samba box (files stored on a SAN), and i can't say that we have had any problems with it. It has been extremely reliable for the past 5+ years we have been using it.

    1. Re:Large University Deployment Solaris + Samba by midian_va · · Score: 1

      I should also mention that this box is a monster 4x900mhz sparc box with 4gb ram serving 2000-5000 client connections with samba alone at any one time. there are many other services running (sun web+coldfusion, ftp, apache+php, NFS) and it never breaks a sweat. With that in mind, samba is definitely not "amateur" nor is it not suitable for enterprise deployments. We have windows servers also and it beats the holy hell out of them as far as responsiveness and uptime is concerned.

  52. Re:Huh? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > get some kickbacks from his friend Bob, who happens to be an MS sales rep.

    That's how Microsoft sells most big deals from what I've seen. They take idiot VP's to strip clubs and get them drunk and get them to agree to give Microsoft stupid amounts of money for nothing. That's the reason our four largest customers switched to the Microsoft garbage. Even though I make a lot more money because I bill them by the hour to fix all of their Microsoft-created problems, it still makes me angry to see them get ripped-off like that because one stupid VP likes to get drunk with the Microsoft rep.

  53. Re:Huh? What? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    No, that's not "Bob", that's "Rob" - as in Enderle...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  54. Macs by flymolo · · Score: 1

    Nobody that I noticed mentioned it yet, but Macs use samba for sharing with windows.
    We haven't had any problems with our Mac/Linux NFS/Samba servers, and our windows clients.
    But we have had problems trying to make our windows servers do NFS.

    --
    "Sometimes it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance." --Corwin Of Amber in CoC
  55. Apple OSX uses Samba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Apple OSX considered good enough for the enterprise? It uses Samba for its file sharing with Windows computers.

    If Apple thinks Samba is good enough, can't you use it too (in your operating system of choice)?

  56. Samba is better than some NAS servers by dannycim · · Score: 1

    A couple of years ago I worked in a University department and we acquired an EMC Celerra NAS server (NS600) which promised to serve files to both our Unix and Windows clients (about 200) using NFS and CIFS (SMB) from the same volume sets.

    Long story short: There were so many problems (not the least security-wise) on the CIFS part of it that we ended up putting a Samba server in front of it for our windows clients. Samba simplified operations, was very simple, efficient, and secure. It integrated in our Domain almost transparently.

    $200,000 server needed a cheap PC running Linux in front of it. You do the math.

    If I had had any guts, I'd have imposed my views and never let the department spend that money on the EMC box and would have gotten Intel server(s) instead, for one tenth the price. >

  57. What about clientserver encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using SAMBA, is there any way for server/client communication to be encrypted after authentication? Or is the only solution to be on a secure network, e.g. over a VPN?

    1. Re:What about clientserver encryption? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm glad you asked that :-). It's not currently
      possible in CIFS - you need a secure network.

      But Steve French (CIFSFS Linux client) and I
      are looking at ways to add krb5/gss encryption
      to Linux/MacOSX/HPUX CIFS clients when talking
      to Samba servers using the UNIX extensions.

      Won't work with Windows clients unless Microsoft
      decides to implement what we design (and publish
      the protocol in an rfc of course) but then again
      you should be using Linux or Mac clients anyway to
      get the extra cool features :-) :-).

      Come to the SambaXP conference to hear more....

      http://sambaxp.org/

      Jeremy.

  58. Re:Huh? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The possibilities for blackmail are worth considering.

  59. Other considerations by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Something else you might want to consider are the things Windows will do that Samba does not (or, at least, does not do without lots of hacking around).

    Two of these are DFS Replication (DFSR) and Volume SnapShots (VSS).

    We are currently in the process of evaluation a replacement for our aging fileserver plus some sort of centralised, SAN-like storage. Two of the leading candidates are Sun's 5320 and IBM's N5200 which offer access for clients via both network (CIFS, NFS, etc) and block-level (iSCSI, FC). Several branch offices are also in the same situation, although they lack the need for block-level, centralised disk.

    However, neither of them support DFSR (nor does any other non-Windows based NAS device from what I can gather). They do both have replication technologies of their own, but those are just as expensive (additional US$8k-ish) - if not more so - than just buying a dedicated Windows fileserver to connect to the SAN/NAS device via iSCSI.

    Then there's the snapshotting, which Samba doesn't do on its own (but you can hack together something, depending on the host OS). VSS in Windows is trivial to enable, very simple to use and works quite well. It's primary benefit is to reduce the overheads on support staff from users "accidentally" deleting things and needing them restored - something they are now able to do themselves, rather than weighing down support staff with those requests. It can also be used for simplifying backup procedures. (Any decent NAS device will also have some sort of snapshotting functionality).

    With regards to Samba in general, we use it fairly extensively on a per-host basis to allow easy access to certain parts of the filesystem for certain staff. I've experimented with it in the past on an AD level and successfully gotten it working, but the overhead for setup is non-trivial, especially if you want things like UIDs to match up across different machines.

    Simple setups in Samba and Windows are simple. More complex (Active Directory integration, especially with multiple servers) are also fairly simple in Windows, but relatively much more difficult with Samba. If you're looking at the latter - *especially if you're not already an expert* - you'll probably need almost a complete person full-time to work with it during the implementation phase.

    The simple version is this: software and hardware are cheap, people-time is expensive (this is a concept a *lot* of technically oriented people - myself included - have significant difficulty a) grasping and b) remembering). In all likelihood, you will use substantially more people-time - especially in the earlier phases - with Samba than you will with Windows. That's where the "value" of Windows (or NAS appliances) comes in - saving people-time $$$. If you're already a Samba expert, OTOH, the people-time aspect of the equation will be substantially different and you can compare largely on features. However, banging out a good, manageable, sustainable, reliable AD-integrated Samba infrastructure is something that will take on the order of weeks unless you already know what you're doing and have done it before. Your boss has a very poor argument against Samba, but do not kid yourself that good arguments against Samba do not exist.

    1. Re:Other considerations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with you on the setup and expense to get samba set up correctly (people time expense).

      But, then when the box is correctly set up, you barely have to look after it. With windows, if you dont do daily checks/updates/virus-scanning, you WILL have problems.

    2. Re:Other considerations by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      One person salary isn't that different from the cost of the Microsoft solution (sometimes even lower) since he'll be over the machine just at instalation time. That is a really short time. (Hardware is relatively cheap, but you should take that into account too, samba runs on much cheaper hardware.)

      And maintaining Samba is much cheaper than Windows. That counted on people time (as you said, that cost real $$$).

    3. Re:Other considerations by hamsjael · · Score: 1

      Offcourse "people time" is expensive. That is exactly why i replace Windows software with OSS alternatives every chance i get. Most software for windows, "Enterprise" or not, can be installed with you having one hand under your chin and the other clicking next.The problem is that when you are done. All of your data is held hostage in closed formats, You haven't got a clue as to have the software works, And you have to blindly babysit those flaky windows apps around the clock. Every time i have replaced Apps on Windows servers with OSS alternatives, the Implementation time has been higher, but afterwards there are a lot fewer problems and having send the time to manually set the applikation up you know how it works. Furthermore the OSS apps are generally of a better qualuty. I think its "fools gold" to save time installing all that "easy" microsoft software. Because it is only in implemantation the time consumption is lower. maintaining it is biggest cost in the run of an apps lifecycle. For an example look at the time needed to move SQL server + db's and Exchange server users + mail if has all been integrated in to AD... talk about people cost

  60. Enterprise Storage Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for company that makes "Enterprise Storage" devices... NAS and archival. The controllers in all our devices run Linux and use CIFS (Samba) and NFS. This is serious stuff. We guarantee your data will be safe for a minimum of 50 years. American hospitals use our stuff for archival of patients' MRI scans and other medical records.

    1. Re:Enterprise Storage Company by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 1

      Great to hear it !

      Just an FYI to your
      engineering product
      manager. If you haven't
      already I'd encourage
      you to get in touch with
      the Team and let us know
      about your use.

      For our OEMs we will usually
      provide help with security
      updates, advance warning of
      issues etc. and also help
      debugging complex problems.

      Cheers,

      Jeremy.

    2. Re:Enterprise Storage Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  61. Go commercial by will_die · · Score: 1

    Back when I did system admin one of the companies I worked for needed SAMBA but the management did not trust it so I found a product called Totalnet. It was an exact replica of SAMBA but with a nice graphical interface, since it was a commercial product management had an easier time and paid the thousands of dollars, but I had a nicer graphical interface, in addition to the command line tools.

  62. Re: Windows 2003 Server is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love Sun to donate this code, just like IBM did.....
    That would be really great. Thanks Jeremy. You're the man! :-)
  63. Active Directory works with Samba by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Samba has had AD support for a while already. Here is a guide with a deliberately broken link to avoid a Slashdotting: www.aeronetworks.ca \ LinuxActiveDirectory.html Please have mercy on the server and only read the above if you are really interested in Active Directory on Samba.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  64. We use Samba too.. by rainhill · · Score: 1

    I'm a sysadmin for a midsize company, I use samba exclusively for the past 6-7 years 4 servers for about 200 users, its easy to manage and never had problems with it.

  65. There's only one show-stopper to using Samba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A true undelete program.

    With Novell file systems (SALVAGE traditional NWFS and Console1 "Deleted files view" for the newer NSS file system) as well as add-on products for NTF$ (Undelete server), versioned undeletes are possible within the file system.

    This is a show-stopper for us as getting files from tape is a chore (distributed backup services). Plus, the accountants like the peace of mind knowing that if they revised a file 20x during the day, they can go back and grab data from any of those 20 "file > saves".

    The VFS layer works OK under Samba for full file detest. It just doesn't do Office file-level versioning, which is the functionality we need to go full-Samba.

    Now, if we didn't need the Office-file versioning of deleted files, we'd be all Samba in this department. SLES 10 is a great server solution IMO. I have it running as a VMWare host for 4 VM boxes, and one installation for all-user Samba file sharing. Samba is rock-solid!