Domain Server

[Eraser-EMC2-]

Yes,
i solved the main and other little issues.
I will write a topic in BETA-QPKG and upload the QPKG there.

Do you use the new firmware V3.7.0 and in this case the new home folders ?
That would be interesting, if you find some issues.

[bramschats]

I am using the new fw 3.7.0, i am not sure about the home folders, how can i see that.

Would you try the howto in your topic, i would like to test if it works.

thanks in advance.

ps. good luck tomorrow....

[Eraser-EMC2-]

ps. good luck tomorrow....

Thank you, also for your team

I uploaded the QPKG here http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=60162&p=270800#p270800

You can activate the home folders under "Access right management" -> "users"

homefolder.gif

[tmt]

I uploaded the QPKG here http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=60162&p=270800#p270800

I don't see any qpkg link there. Did you remove it?

[Eraser-EMC2-]

Yes, as you can see it on the page.
The version had a issue in the uninstall routine which delete the whole data on the NAS.
So i had to remove it.

At this time i cant say when i will upload the next version because i dont want to purge the data of other people.

[tmt]

Thanks, I see that now. Hopefully you can get to the bottom of the issue! Will be happy to test when you're ready.

[af0815]

Basic:

I use TS 212 as an domaincontroller (PDC Win NT 4.0 like) with the qpkg from Eraser-EMC2-. in version 3.6.1 it was possible to join a domain with WinXP, in the version 3.7.3 ist was not possible. On the WinXP (plain new system with all patches) the system says an rpc error or the netapi32.dll crash.

With wireshark i see that the response diffent is

"327","40.504189000","192.168.1.15","192.168.1.10","RPC_NETLOGON","196","NetrEnumerateTrustedDomains request"
"328","40.506354000","192.168.1.10","192.168.1.15","RPC_NETLOGON","158","NetrEnumerateTrustedDomains response"

"167","2.293849000","192.168.1.15","192.168.1.10","RPC_NETLOGON","196","NetrEnumerateTrustedDomains request"
"168","2.295641000","192.168.1.10","192.168.1.15","RPC_NETLOGON","150","NetrEnumerateTrustedDomains response, Unknown error 0x0000001f"

It looks for me like an internal problem in smbd. The version of smbd reports the same -> 3.5.2 but the date and filesize are diffent. From 3.6.1 is 9263904 bytes 11.may 13:59 and the version from 3.7.3 is 9269120 bytes 31.jul 23:39

Is there any soloution or hint ?

edit:
.15 is the WinXP
.10 is the NAS with the PDC

edit2:
same in version 3.7.1, same response like 3.7.3, same error, not working correctly

Edit3:
3.6.1 without patch have the same trouble, with Patch it Works correctly.

[dtwins]

I hear that the new SAMBA 4 can serve as a real Active Directory domain controller, configurable by official Microsoft tools. Is this true? Maybe QNAP can release official firmware.

[af0815]

I have make some installs under Debian with samba 4, i think this is far, far away. Whats the goal for QNAP ? Nothing, only a lot of work. But this is not the right thread for a discussion about samba 4.

I have spend a lot of time to find out, samba 3 is working for the purposes of qnap only, but there is no focus or support for the PDC function. The QNAP themselves can work as a member of a domain, this is normally enough for the mainstream.

[storageman]

I have spend a lot of time to find out, samba 3 is working for the purposes of qnap only, but there is no focus or support for the PDC function. The QNAP themselves can work as a member of a domain, this is normally enough for the mainstream.

Exactly, why would you want a Qnap as PDC? More to go wrong. Leave domain control to Microsoft.

[Eraser-EMC2-]

Leave domain control to Microsoft.

You are right for for business
but for the home use is a Microsoft-Server oversized and to heavy in costs.
In this case is a PDC on a QNAP-NAS the best and cheapest solution.

More to go wrong.

Same as on the Microsoft-Server without experience.
In both cases you have to know how it works.

[storageman]

Leave domain control to Microsoft.

You are right for for business
but for the home use is a Microsoft-Server oversized and to heavy in costs.
In this case is a PDC on a QNAP-NAS the best and cheapest solution.

More to go wrong.

Same as on the Microsoft-Server without experience.
In both cases you have to know how it works.

Most home routers have enough DNS control options to keep 99% of people happy, still don't see the need (I mean how many IP addresses do people have at home) - unless I'm living in the past.

[Eraser-EMC2-]

Most home routers have enough DNS control options to keep 99% of people happy,

DNS and PDC are 2 different server types.
In case of DNS it is correct
but PDC is a user database server (based on the Windows NT 4.0 Server , not AD Domain Server) to authenticate the user on Windows clients.

As i see you misunderstood the headline of this topic.

[storageman]

Most home routers have enough DNS control options to keep 99% of people happy,

DNS and PDC are 2 different server types.
In case of DNS it is correct
but PDC is a user database server (based on the Windows NT 4.0 Server , not AD Domain Server) to authenticate the user on Windows clients.

As i see you misunderstood the headline of this topic.

Yes, had a mental block there. Still, don't get the need for PDC via NAS.