You won't need Samba
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DarrenR114 Feb 12, 2007 9:37 AM EDT |
If they're able to deliver on the roadmap as outlined here, then you won't need the Samba project, because the servers with the different OS will all look like native boxes to each other. |
| tuxchick Feb 12, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
Of course you'll need Samba- it's a network filesystem that also does single sign-on network authentication, or domain controller as the windows geeks say, and Samba 4 aims to be an Active Directory replacement. Totally different beast than virtual environments. I use it as an NFS replacement on *nix LANs, and a domain controller on mixed networks. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 12, 2007 9:56 AM EDT |
That's what I get for not reading the actual article and ASSuming it was referring to this article on much the same subject: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=... In this announcement, they refer to things beyond mere virtualization, like "Directory and Identity Interoperability" and "Document Format Compatibility" |
| tracyanne Feb 12, 2007 12:24 PM EDT |
from the link at http://www.prnewswire.com quote:: Directory and Identity Interoperability Microsoft and Novell are working toward improving directory and identity interoperability between Microsoft and Novell products and technologies using standards-based protocols designed to result in improved access control for IT resources managed with either Novell eDirectory(TM) or Microsoft Active Directory(R). ::quote Microsoft, it appears will not be mking their SMB/CIFS protocols public. It appears they will be making that information available for use in Novells proprietary network filesystem product. In which case Jeremy Allison has a point when he says Microsoft will not share that information. There is no point in him working for Novell, as SaMBa is not part of the interoperability deal, and Linux and FOSS as a whole do not benefit from the Microsoft/Novell deal, Novell does however. |
| swbrown Feb 12, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
Well, I guess there's your answer to questions about how the 'interoperability' agreement between Microsoft and Novell would pan out. Instead of Novell getting to use the Xen-talking-to-Microsoft's-hypervisor work done by XenSource under contract by Microsoft that was buried after completion, they were apparently not given access to that and are stuck taking the only alternate route of attempting to pull a VMWare and paravirtualize specific subsystems by hand. That's suboptimal, as it's slow and still leaves you with an unmanageable blob during runtime - can't dynamically change memory allocations, etc.. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 13, 2007 5:19 AM EDT |
"Using standards-based protocols" ... that is no indication that Directory Interoperability won't work natively under Xen under published protocols. This could happen by using DAV, which is not a "closed" or "proprietary" protocol. Such an approach eliminates the need for SMB (I'm using DAV for connectivity between servers at work as it is now) except in the case of Printer sharing. Identity Interoperability could be attained through LDAP or NIS - again these are not "closed" or "proprietary" protocols. It would be nice if someone would make such connectivity a no-brainer. Samba is not that product. DAV is close, but has drawbacks in setting it up, and applications on the MS-Windows side don't always recognise a DAV "mount" as a regular directory. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!