mirror of
https://github.com/samba-team/samba.git
synced 2025-01-13 13:18:06 +03:00
Another partial update. More to follow.
(This used to be commit af8ad4d3f8
)
This commit is contained in:
parent
e2e8575da9
commit
9c183bae31
@ -29,26 +29,36 @@ we will do our best to provide a solution.
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>SAM backend</primary><secondary>LDAP</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
Samba-3 can act as a Backup Domain Controller (BDC) to another Samba Primary Domain
|
||||
Controller (PDC). A Samba-3 PDC can operate with an LDAP account backend. The LDAP backend can be
|
||||
either a common master LDAP server or a slave server. The use of a slave LDAP server has the
|
||||
benefit that when the master is down, clients may still be able to log onto the network.
|
||||
This effectively gives Samba a high degree of scalability and is an effective solution
|
||||
for large organizations. If you use an LDAP slave server for a PDC,
|
||||
you will need to ensure the master's continued availability &smbmdash; if the
|
||||
slave finds its master down at the wrong time, you will have
|
||||
stability and operational problems.
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>PDC</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>BDC</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>LDAP</primary><secondary>slave</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>scalability</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
Samba-3 can act as a Backup Domain Controller (BDC) to another Samba Primary Domain Controller (PDC). A
|
||||
Samba-3 PDC can operate with an LDAP account backend. The LDAP backend can be either a common master LDAP
|
||||
server or a slave server. The use of a slave LDAP server has the benefit that when the master is down, clients
|
||||
may still be able to log onto the network. This effectively gives Samba a high degree of scalability and is
|
||||
an effective solution for large organizations. If you use an LDAP slave server for a PDC, you will need to
|
||||
ensure the master's continued availability &smbmdash; if the slave finds its master down at the wrong time,
|
||||
you will have stability and operational problems.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>two-way</primary><secondary>propagation</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>replication</primary><secondary>SAM</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>non-LDAP</primary><secondary>backend</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
While it is possible to run a Samba-3 BDC with a non-LDAP backend, that
|
||||
backend must allow some form of "two-way" propagation of changes
|
||||
from the BDC to the master. Only LDAP has such capability at this stage.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>non-LDAP</primary><secondary>backend</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>SAM backend</primary><secondary>non-LDAP</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>domain</primary><secondary>member</secondary><tertiary>server</tertiary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>BDC</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>PDC</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>trust account password</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>domain trust</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
The use of a non-LDAP backend SAM database is particularly problematic because domain member
|
||||
servers and workstations periodically change the Machine Trust Account password. The new
|
||||
password is then stored only locally. This means that in the absence of a centrally stored
|
||||
@ -60,14 +70,14 @@ breakage of the domain trust.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
Considering the number of comments and questions raised concerning how to configure a BDC,
|
||||
let's consider each possible option and look at the pros and cons for each possible solution.
|
||||
<link linkend="pdc-bdc-table">The Domain Backend Account Distribution Options table below</link> lists
|
||||
possible design configurations for a PDC/BDC infrastructure.
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>net</primary><secondary>rpc</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>SAM backend</primary><secondary>ldapsam</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>SAM backend</primary><secondary>tdbsam</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>replication</primary><secondary>SAM</secondary></indexterm>
|
||||
Considering the number of comments and questions raised concerning how to configure a BDC,
|
||||
let's consider each possible option and look at the pros and cons for each possible solution.
|
||||
<link linkend="pdc-bdc-table">The Domain Backend Account Distribution Options table below</link> lists
|
||||
possible design configurations for a PDC/BDC infrastructure.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<table frame="all" id="pdc-bdc-table"><title>Domain Backend Account Distribution Options</title>
|
||||
|
@ -242,14 +242,42 @@ Information Databases</link>.
|
||||
|
||||
</sect1>
|
||||
|
||||
<sect1>
|
||||
<title>Comparison of Single Sign-on and Domain Security</title>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
When network administrators are asked to describe the benefits of Windows NT4 and active directory networking
|
||||
the most often mentioned feature is that of SSO. Many companies have implemented SSO solutions. The mode of
|
||||
implementation of a single sign-on solution is an important factor in the practice of networking in general,
|
||||
and is critical in respect of Windows networking. Where a company may have a wide variety of information
|
||||
systems, each of which require some form of user authentication and validation it is not uncommon that users
|
||||
may need to remember more than a dozen login IDs and passwords. The problem will be compounded when the
|
||||
password for each system must be changed at regular intervals, and particularly so where password uniqueness
|
||||
and history limits are applied.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
There is a wide perception that SSO is the answer to the problem of users having to deal with too many
|
||||
information system access credentials. Many elaborate schemes have been devised to make it possible to deliver
|
||||
a user-friendly SSO solution. The trouble is that if this implementation is not done correctly, the site may
|
||||
end up paying dearly by way of complexity and management overheads. Simply put, many SSO solutions are an
|
||||
administrative nightmare.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
SSO implementations may involve centralization of all user account information in one repository. Depending on
|
||||
... add stuff here JHT!
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
</sect1>
|
||||
|
||||
<sect1>
|
||||
<title>Basics of Domain Control</title>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>
|
||||
<indexterm><primary>domain control</primary></indexterm>
|
||||
Over the years, public perceptions of what domain control really is has taken on an
|
||||
almost mystical nature. Before we branch into a brief overview of domain control,
|
||||
there are three basic types of domain controllers.
|
||||
Over the years, public perceptions of what domain control really is has taken on an almost mystical nature.
|
||||
Before we branch into a brief overview of domain control, there are three basic types of domain controllers.
|
||||
</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<sect2>
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user