Re: silug: IP address? -- don't confuse DC functionality with SMB

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 16:57, Nathaniel Reindl wrote:
> I'm going to pull the FUD card here.
> I know for a _fact_ that the latest minor release (i.e., the release
> in effect after updates and service packs) of Windows 2000 can talk to
> Windows Server 2003 SMB.

First off, you should read some of the ZDLab and other reports of client
performance and feature support of Windows Server 2003 v. Samba 3. 
Pre-XP clients _bomb_ in performance and feature support with Windows
Server 2003 compared to Samba 3.

Second, the SMB protocol is a broken hack of different implementations. 
Different client versions support different functions, and there is _no_
consistency.  That's when when it came to NT5.1's (XP/2003) SMB stack,
Microsoft just cut out all feature support for pre-NT5.1 clients. 
That's why performance and feature support tanks with Windows Server
2003 for pre-XP clients.

Third, I hope some of you remember some of the companies I've worked for
in your area.  Try over 100,000 nodes.  ;->  But even then, just trying
to get SMB signing or IPSec to work between a dozen secured nodes was a
challenge.  SMB signing seems to crash nodes pre-XP/2003.

> To start, I'm one of the student network admins at O'Fallon Township
> High in O'Fallon, Illinois, that actually deals with some of the
> integration tasks that show up from time to time, and I've seen
> _nothing_ to dictate that Windows 2000 versteht nicht Windows Server
> 2003's SMB implementation.  Operation has been _flawless_, ACLs work
> fine, etc.

I'm not talking about ADS tokens and the proprietary LDAP/Kerberos
implementation.  That does _not_ use the SMB protocol, but other RPCs. 
As long as you have NT5.x (2000+), that works very well, and Windows
Server 2003 _does_ improve the older CIFS (NT4) compatibility to.

I'm talking about the SMB protocol itself.  Windows Server 2003 is
designed explicitly for NT5.1 (XP/2003) communication.  Pre-NT5.1
feature support is entirely dropped.  That means reduced performance for
pre-NT5.1 systems, and total issues if you try to do anything but the
"default" SMB protocol.

> And, yes, I'm _trying_ to petition District 203 to make the move to
> have nothing but Linux in the NOC over there, so quit bugging me about
> it.  I wish I could make them follow Shiloh's move, but unfortunately,
> making them do _anything_ worthwhile is like trying to herd cats.

If you're going to go Windows Server 2003 for your _file_ servers, then
you want to be running XP clients.

If you are merely using Windows Server 2003 as DCs alongside Windows
Server 2000 which are still the majority of your _file_ servers, then
you won't see issues.  But the more you have Windows Server 2003 as your
_file_ front, you'll have more issues with pre-XP clients.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith@ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.




-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.