Standing up a new site - your thoughts
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You sure? It's in the docs.
https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/msdfs.html
Ah, it might have changed since I've done it. Though DFS in windows server 2012 is a bit different and uses SMB 3.0 normally.
-
The Samba Wiki mentions that DFS-R isn't implemented yet (I believe this is what 2012 ans 2012R2 use for replicating SYSVOL, etc...
That's not to say that you couldn't replicate it by other means though...
-
Samba 4.0.0 has what they call "basic" support for SMB3.0
-
NXfilter would be one way to do your DNS if you don't want a whole BIND setup. It will do Zone Transfers from Windows DNS and will also handle content filtering.
-
Do you want to do a zone transfer rather than just have it be a local cache?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you want to do a zone transfer rather than just have it be a local cache?
Nxfilter has caching as well on top of the zone transfers. It's caches up to 100,000 entries by default.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you want to do a zone transfer rather than just have it be a local cache?
Is local cache enough? If the local linux box is the first DNS choice, won't windows try to register with DNS there, and if it's only cache, won't it fail, then I could have WSUS problems?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you want to do a zone transfer rather than just have it be a local cache?
Is local cache enough? If the local linux box is the first DNS choice, won't windows try to register with DNS there, and if it's only cache, won't it fail, then I could have WSUS problems?
Doesn't Windows registration happen via AD?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you want to do a zone transfer rather than just have it be a local cache?
Is local cache enough? If the local linux box is the first DNS choice, won't windows try to register with DNS there, and if it's only cache, won't it fail, then I could have WSUS problems?
Doesn't Windows registration happen via AD?
No, don't think so... I think it's dynamic DNS, unless it changed.
-
@Dashrender said:
No, don't think so... I think it's dynamic DNS, unless it changed.
You are correct. You'd want something more than a cache then.
