Domain/Server Upgrade Options
-
@NerdyDad said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Option 2) Would salt be a good alternative instead of Samba?
Option 3) AzureAD could be another viable option for something like this, along with all of the additional features, such as SharePoint, Skype, Email, OneDrive, etc. But are those features worth more than the $3,600 / year to the company? That would be the question for you to ask the stakeholders.
Salt alone doesn't replace SAMBA. Salt can replace the GPO portion of Windows AD, but not the file share part. So even if not using the SAMBA AD features, assuming Bill doesn't move to something like NextCoud, he'd still need SAMBA for file shares.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
Good point.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@coliver said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Domain will be stuck at 2008 levels
Does this really matter? You're currently on Server 2003 obviously you have no use for the features that have been recently introduced.
Good point.
I've told you that several times.
Good point.
I really feel that this has become a rule of thumb at this point... if you are moving up from Server 2003 AD today, the answer is Samba for AD only, no Windows. There will be exceptions, it can't quite be a best practice, but for all intents and purposes, if you are still on 2003, Windows should be simply ruled out as the next step. It just doesn't make sense for a load of reasons.
-
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
And it is free. It's easier to solve the problem than to discuss it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
FFS, just spin up NethServer, or whatever that other common one is people have mentioned, and move on already.
Don't try and do this piecemeal.
You do not know what you are doing and will just make it harder on yourself.
So spin up a complete package to handle your DHCP/DNS/AD.
Then spin up a separate instance for a file share.
And it is free. It's easier to solve the problem than to discuss it.
I like discussing things!
-
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
-
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
You mean that you DON'T roll yourself? Rolling your own is great. It's getting something like FreeNAS that is a problem.
The biggest issues are around statefulness. FreeNAS is hugeles stateful, Netserver is trivially so. A FreeNAS failure means bit time outage and likely data loss. A Nethserver outage is normally an inconvenience. Recreating storage by hand is essentially impossible. Recreating AD by hand is an annoying afternoon.
-
If your linux experience is anything like mine option 1 is probably the best route. If you've got a few years of experience under your belt I'd go 2 because I hate microsoft and a pox upon their tax.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
You mean that you DON'T roll yourself? Rolling your own is great. It's getting something like FreeNAS that is a problem.
The biggest issues are around statefulness. FreeNAS is hugeles stateful, Netserver is trivially so. A FreeNAS failure means bit time outage and likely data loss. A Nethserver outage is normally an inconvenience. Recreating storage by hand is essentially impossible. Recreating AD by hand is an annoying afternoon.
OK fine sure - but why not just use the native SAMBA tools in CentOS instead of using nethServer?
-
@MattSpeller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
If your linux experience is anything like mine option 1 is probably the best route. If you've got a few years of experience under your belt I'd go 2 because I hate microsoft and a pox upon their tax.
But you need next to no experience with the OS to use a system like NethServer. It is all GUI driven.
This is the same as using FreePBX, SnipeIT, Nextcloud, anything.
There is little need for knowledge of the underlying OS.
-
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
You mean that you DON'T roll yourself? Rolling your own is great. It's getting something like FreeNAS that is a problem.
The biggest issues are around statefulness. FreeNAS is hugeles stateful, Netserver is trivially so. A FreeNAS failure means bit time outage and likely data loss. A Nethserver outage is normally an inconvenience. Recreating storage by hand is essentially impossible. Recreating AD by hand is an annoying afternoon.
OK fine sure - but why not just use the native SAMBA tools in CentOS instead of using nethServer?
Because there are not "tools" in the OS. That is what you are installing.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
There is little need for knowledge of the underlying OS.
And, FFS, before @Dashrender goes complaining about what do you do when it breaks...
Well first, you Google. Then you ask in a community. Then you restore from backup, to prevent loss of downtime.
Just like you do with Windows when it f***ing breaks.
-
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@scottalanmiller said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
@Dashrender said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
Scott, Why do you recommend a product like nethServer, but not the NAS solutions that you roll yourself?
You mean that you DON'T roll yourself? Rolling your own is great. It's getting something like FreeNAS that is a problem.
The biggest issues are around statefulness. FreeNAS is hugeles stateful, Netserver is trivially so. A FreeNAS failure means bit time outage and likely data loss. A Nethserver outage is normally an inconvenience. Recreating storage by hand is essentially impossible. Recreating AD by hand is an annoying afternoon.
OK fine sure - but why not just use the native SAMBA tools in CentOS instead of using nethServer?
Same reason that people use a GUI on Windows.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
NethServer
Alright you bastards, I'll take it for a spin
-
I guess at some level I am concerned instead of it being "FFS install and move on" it blows something up.
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
I guess at some level I am concerned instead of it being "FFS install and move on" it blows something up.
Ditto
I've heard a lot about it around here so I'm going to test it in a vm and see what the fuss is about
-
@BRRABill said in Domain/Server Upgrade Options:
I guess at some level I am concerned instead of it being "FFS install and move on" it blows something up.
Part of the issue with AD is that lots of things tie into it. If anything goes wrong, things fail.
If your need is AD only for file serving, and the thought is that you don't need LAN file serving any longer, then this is a complication, cost and risk that need not exist.
-
You CAN run two AD systems side by side, that's a pain but lower risk. But if you can avoid AD, you could, in theory, move everyone to NextCloud while still using AD and just shut down AD when you are done using it. No migration, just phase it out.
