Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows (long and not very conclusive)
Todor Fassl wrote: From: Cain, Marc marc.c...@seattlecolleges.edu e user's profile folder location (though in the case of Active Directory -- delivering additional GroupPolicy behaviors). The client's copy of Windows is doing the roaming work and it's behavior is determined by local Group Policy settings. Oh, that's a really good point. Even if the Windows client is doing some kind of rsync-like download, it would be initiated by the client, not the server. While the work is initiated on the client, how much work is done is is dictated by the server. It is the case that windows volumes can be monitored for changes. I don't have a windows server to check this out, but I do know what samba does on *logout* (when it is the slowest). -- it does an open action to get the status of every file on the remote server, whereas linux can deliver 'stat' info without opening the file. On windows, an open may be 'cheap', because the inodes of all files are kept in in 1 area -- the MFT.So theoretically, simply looking up a filename gives you it's time/date stamp, as I understand it. On most *nix file systems, the inodes are distributed in directory blocks sprinkled throughout the file system. So for each directory opened, it has to seek to the blocks for that directory and read them -- and begin returning info from all the inodes in that dir. At the very least, there will potentially be more seek times if a large number of directories are processed. (I say potentially and theoretically -- I don't have a windows server, so I don't know what it does!)Also, I'm NOT real certain these days what is involved in opening a file on linux. I don't THINK the server NEEDS to seek to the file data for any reason unless an actual read is attempted, so for Time Date, the inodes in the directories should be enough. However. extended attributes are a different story. They are often stored like file data some place else on disk -- and if you have long access lists on files -- on NT, those security descriptors are in the same place as the Date Time stamps. I can only speak with any experience about XFS, but other file systems on linux may operate similarly (I don't know), But if it is a small descriptor, it can fit in the inode -- but if it is large, it will have separately allocated data blocks -- that probably need to be read in order to give information to NT regarding access. So again -- it is theoretically possible if you have larger access lists on EACH file ... that it would have to perform an access seek for each file. My profile dir (which has a symlinks to my docdir)... by itself has 149388 files /27062 dirs, 6.5GB (which is too much for comfortable login/logout -- I usually pull my network cord)... I have a relatively fast server and a 1Gb ethernet. I've seen it take 45 minutes for a logout. (had 12G then and didn't know it...). BUT I know MS can restore over the net an image @ around 65MB/s (and my own apps can hit up to 119MBps reads and 125MBps writes.Reads are slower BECAUSE the client is having to do the requests -- it won't issue another request until the first one is done. Writes though, though, can be queued and, hence, can get full bandwidth. The smaller the packet size... the longer things take. To send a 4MB email in Tbird -- which sends things in 4K packet sizes -- can easily take well over a minute. HUGE difference. So -- theoretically, the windows server could be faster on profile serving for date/time stamps by a noticeable amount. Though w/o benching it, I couldn't say for sure. Todor wrote: The client is *downloading* the files. The server isn't pushing them out, Here, take all these files whether you like it or not. The list of files to download would be calculated on the client. --- Hopefully you can see why that might be slower... if it was lots of small requests... Note -- that the above doesn't count actual transfer of DATA!! It's just inspecting the T/D stamps of each and every file *sigh*... BTW -- you can see what is being transfer using wireshark... It's not rocket science... wireshark can even be config'ed to display the file names that are being opened (provided you aren't using an encrypted connection...). So you can see files/dirs being walked, but not necessarily read.. Hope someone finds this to be useful info... -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Is there any reason to believe that a samba server would be slower when serving up roaming profiles than a real Windows server? In my experience, Samba is much faster than Windows on comparable hardware. From 3 to 5 times faster, depending on function. Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. Indeed he doesn't know anything about Samba; he's wrong. Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
-Original Message- From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:07 AM To: Todor Fassl Cc: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Is there any reason to believe that a samba server would be slower when serving up roaming profiles than a real Windows server? In my experience, Samba is much faster than Windows on comparable hardware. From 3 to 5 times faster, depending on function. Samba is also far more versatile and configurable than Windows Server. For instance, built into Samba it's possible to configure a Recycle Bin into each and every share. This is accomplished through adding a single line to the share. To do that on Windows, it requires a registry hack, on each workstation. Maybe that can be automated, but it doesn't have anything to do with the server, it's all done on the workstation, forget to implement the registry hack, then you forget about having a Recycle Bin on that share. I can't tell you how many times that Samba configuration has saved a piece of critical data. Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. Indeed he doesn't know anything about Samba; he's wrong. Steve I concur. -Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
On Thursday, 28.06.2012 at 11:07 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Is there any reason to believe that a samba server would be slower when serving up roaming profiles than a real Windows server? In my experience, Samba is much faster than Windows on comparable hardware. From 3 to 5 times faster, depending on function. Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. However native speed won't be important if, under Samba, a full roaming profile is downloaded on each login whereas under Windows an rsync-like action takes place to only download minimal changes. I don't know whether that's the case or not, whether it's configurable behaviour under either Samba or Windows Server, but it's certainly an interesting point. Dave. -- Dave Ewart da...@ceu.ox.ac.uk Computing Manager, Cancer Epidemiology Unit University of Oxford / Cancer Research UK N 51.7516, W 1.2152 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Dave Ewart da...@ceu.ox.ac.uk wrote: On Thursday, 28.06.2012 at 11:07 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. However native speed won't be important if, under Samba, a full roaming profile is downloaded on each login whereas under Windows an rsync-like action takes place to only download minimal changes. I don't know whether that's the case or not, whether it's configurable behaviour under either Samba or Windows Server, but it's certainly an interesting point. is it possible that unix file timestamps having a greater precision than ntfs is causing windows to see a change? I know rsync has an option to combat this. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
On Jun 28, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Todor Fassl wrote: Is there any reason to believe that a samba server would be slower when serving up roaming profiles than a real Windows server? I know roaming profiles are slow by nature and that there are things you can do to help like configuring ffolder redirection. But all else being equal, how would a samba server compare to a Windows server when it comes to speed specifically with respect to roaming profiles? Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. True roaming profiles upload and download the entire profile at every logon, logoff. Doesn't matter what server is on the other end. If folder redirectoin is not implemented the profile grows over time and this copying of the entire profile will slow down logons over time -- whether you're using a Windows server or a Samba server. If one sets GroupPolicy to only create local profiles for domain users it's possible that the local Windows box will do an rsync-ish changes only, though I've not tested this. It's also possible to implement local profiles with folder redirection and no roaming component which will never copy the NTUSER.DAT and other files at logon/logoff. It's important to remember that the server is not doing any of the roaming profile work other than informing the client of the user's profile folder location (though in the case of Active Directory -- delivering additional GroupPolicy behaviors). The client's copy of Windows is doing the roaming work and it's behavior is determined by local Group Policy settings. The only way to really control the amount of data going up and down for true roaming profiles is implementing folder redirection where at least the AppData folder is redirected to a location on the server outside of the roaming profile store -- typically to a folder in the user's home directory. The Samba HowTo has some very good basic info on how to implement folder redirection. Works with Windows XP and Windows 7. You can also search this list for folder redirection using Samba and Windows 7. http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/ProfileMgmt.html -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
is it possible that unix file timestamps having a greater precision than ntfs is causing windows to see a change? I know rsync has an option to combat this. -- Well, I have no reason to believe that our Windows guy is correct and that Windows downloads only changed files and samba downloads the whole profile. I'm guessing he is basing that on how slow logins are. I can guarantee that he hasn't actually checked it out. He either thought it up himself or he heard it somewhere. Does anyone know if Windows does download only files that have changed? Something just occured to me... Well, maybe this is a bug in samba but probably not. When you join a machine to a domain where a time server is configured, it doesn't automatically configure the time servers on the client machine. On our network, the file server is the PDC. We have redundant BDCs which are configured as time servers in samba and are also ntp servers for the linux machines. If I boot a linux machine, I can use ntpq -p to make sure that the machine is getting data from our ntp servers. But if I go into the Windows control panel and look at Date and Time, the server listed there is time.windows.com. [Which, as it occurs to me, is also bogus in that what the heck is windows.com? If its Microsoft, why isn't the default time server time.microsoft.com?] Anyway, it seems to me that if you join a machine to a domain with a time server configured, it should show up in Date and Time - Internet Time - Server. But our BDCs aren't even listed there. Gawd, I hate Windows. I don't hate Microsoft or Bill Gates. He seems like a nice enough guy to me. And I don't blame him for getting to be a bzillionaire even though his software kinda sucks. But, still, I hate Windows. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
From: Cain, Marc marc.c...@seattlecolleges.edu e user's profile folder location (though in the case of Active Directory -- delivering additional GroupPolicy behaviors). The client's copy of Windows is doing the roaming work and it's behavior is determined by local Group Policy settings. Oh, that's a really good point. Even if the Windows client is doing some kind of rsync-like download, it would be initiated by the client, not the server. The client is *downloading* the files. The server isn't pushing them out, Here, take all these files whether you like it or not. The list of files to download would be calculated on the client. I suppose you could argue that if the Windows server supports an rsync-like protocol and samba does not, it would make sense. But I don't think something like that could get past the samba developers. The only way to really control the amount of data going up and down for true roaming profiles is implementing folder redirection [...] Right. I mentioned that in my original message. That's the point. I am pushing the idea that our problem is not using folder redirection and the Windows guy is pushing the idea that its samba itself. So the boss is like, Lets just dump samba and roaming profiles, etc. Its all this work just to have files backed up. Lets just give everybody a local profile and if they lose everything in their My Documents folder, too bad. ]Sorry, I didn't relize this list was set to reply to sender. Mark, you are going to get 2 copies of this message.] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
That's the point. I am pushing the idea that our problem is not using folder redirection and the Windows guy is pushing the idea that its samba itself. Spot-on. Your windows guy just needs to implement a few AD registry tweaks (see below etc) to get things working sweetly, and folder redirection (to MS-Server or samba/linux) is considered to be best-practice in every microsoft house I've ever come across. No-one uses roaming profiles without it, unless all their workstations are wired with 10GB ethernet to the most over-spec'd server I've ever seen, or their users don't actually roam more than once every six months... On 28 June 2012 20:09, Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a decent summary of roaming profiles on the latest windows iterations. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh848267 Branche cache may also be relevant: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831696 WIthout the original windows admin here to query its difficult to be sure, but he might well have been talking about having offline files enabled on redirected folders attached to roaming profiles, which will display an rsync-like behaviour when reconnected. Offline files works on my illumos-based ZFS/samba NAS (the last time I checked) indistinguishably from the way it does against microsoft smb shares though, so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't work on linux samba... or maybe I'm not testing it rigourously. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/springboard/archive/2010/04/19/understanding-user-state-virtualization-improvements-in-windows-7.aspx Here's an old (but still applicable?) HOWTO for enabling Vista's specific offline files efficiently against samba/linux: http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2007/03/16/using-offline-files-with-samba-emc-servers-nas-devices.aspx YMMV on Windows 7 and 8. On 28 June 2012 16:26, Chris Weiss cwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Dave Ewart da...@ceu.ox.ac.uk wrote: On Thursday, 28.06.2012 at 11:07 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. However native speed won't be important if, under Samba, a full roaming profile is downloaded on each login whereas under Windows an rsync-like action takes place to only download minimal changes. I don't know whether that's the case or not, whether it's configurable behaviour under either Samba or Windows Server, but it's certainly an interesting point. is it possible that unix file timestamps having a greater precision than ntfs is causing windows to see a change? I know rsync has an option to combat this. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
...and apologies for doing the reply to sender/reply to list thing as well. :) On 28 June 2012 20:15, Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com wrote: That's the point. I am pushing the idea that our problem is not using folder redirection and the Windows guy is pushing the idea that its samba itself. Spot-on. Your windows guy just needs to implement a few AD registry tweaks (see below etc) to get things working sweetly, and folder redirection (to MS-Server or samba/linux) is considered to be best-practice in every microsoft house I've ever come across. No-one uses roaming profiles without it, unless all their workstations are wired with 10GB ethernet to the most over-spec'd server I've ever seen, or their users don't actually roam more than once every six months... On 28 June 2012 20:09, Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a decent summary of roaming profiles on the latest windows iterations. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh848267 Branche cache may also be relevant: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831696 WIthout the original windows admin here to query its difficult to be sure, but he might well have been talking about having offline files enabled on redirected folders attached to roaming profiles, which will display an rsync-like behaviour when reconnected. Offline files works on my illumos-based ZFS/samba NAS (the last time I checked) indistinguishably from the way it does against microsoft smb shares though, so I can't see any reason why it shouldn't work on linux samba... or maybe I'm not testing it rigourously. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/springboard/archive/2010/04/19/understanding-user-state-virtualization-improvements-in-windows-7.aspx Here's an old (but still applicable?) HOWTO for enabling Vista's specific offline files efficiently against samba/linux: http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2007/03/16/using-offline-files-with-samba-emc-servers-nas-devices.aspx YMMV on Windows 7 and 8. On 28 June 2012 16:26, Chris Weiss cwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Dave Ewart da...@ceu.ox.ac.uk wrote: On Thursday, 28.06.2012 at 11:07 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Todor Fassl wrote: Our Windows guy insists samba is slow but I don't believe it. He claims that when you load a roamng profile, Windows downloads only files that have changed and samba downloads everything. But he doesn't know anything about samba and I don't know where he got that from. However native speed won't be important if, under Samba, a full roaming profile is downloaded on each login whereas under Windows an rsync-like action takes place to only download minimal changes. I don't know whether that's the case or not, whether it's configurable behaviour under either Samba or Windows Server, but it's certainly an interesting point. is it possible that unix file timestamps having a greater precision than ntfs is causing windows to see a change? I know rsync has an option to combat this. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
At Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:46:07 -0500 Todor Fassl fassl@gmail.com wrote: is it possible that unix file timestamps having a greater precision than ntfs is causing windows to see a change? I know rsync has an option to combat this. Well, I have no reason to believe that our Windows guy is correct and that Windows downloads only changed files and samba downloads the whole profile. I'm guessing he is basing that on how slow logins are. I can guarantee that he hasn't actually checked it out. He either thought it up himself or he heard it somewhere. Does anyone know if Windows does download only files that have changed? Something just occured to me... Well, maybe this is a bug in samba but probably not. When you join a machine to a domain where a time server is configured, it doesn't automatically configure the time servers on the client machine. On our network, the file server is the PDC. We have redundant BDCs which are configured as time servers in samba and are also ntp servers for the linux machines. If I boot a linux machine, I can use ntpq -p to make sure that the machine is getting data from our ntp servers. But if I go into the Windows control panel and look at Date and Time, the server listed there is time.windows.com. [Which, as it occurs to me, is also bogus in that what the heck is windows.com? If its Microsoft, why isn't the default time server time.microsoft.com?] dig time.windows.com = ;; ANSWER SECTION: time.windows.com. 3482IN CNAME time.microsoft.akadns.net. time.microsoft.akadns.net. 158 IN A 65.55.21.13 Yes. windows.com is a real live domain name, (owned by Microsoft), and time.windows.com is a real host name with actual records. And it appears to be a legit time server. Anyway, it seems to me that if you join a machine to a domain with a time server configured, it should show up in Date and Time - Internet Time - Server. But our BDCs aren't even listed there. Gawd, I hate Windows. I don't hate Microsoft or Bill Gates. He seems like a nice enough guy to me. And I don't blame him for getting to be a bzillionaire even though his software kinda sucks. But, still, I hate Windows. -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com Deepwoods Software-- http://www.deepsoft.com/ () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
From: Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com the heck is windows.com? If its Microsoft, why isn't the default time server time.microsoft.com?] dig time.windows.com = ;; ANSWER SECTION: time.windows.com. 3482IN CNAME time.microsoft.akadns.net. time.microsoft.akadns.net. 158 IN A 65.55.21.13 Yes. windows.com is a real live domain name, (owned by Microsoft), and time.windows.com is a real host name with actual records. And it appears to be a legit time server. I should point our ntp servers at it just for giggles. But I just meant why the heck is the default time.windows.com instead of time.microsoft.com? Wouldn't that make more sense? Richard Stallman could own windows.com for all I know. Was it Xerox who invented the original GUI? It could be owned by Xerox. I guess Microsoft doesn't think that way. Windows is Microsoft, Microsoft is Windows. But we digress. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
From: Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com To: samba@lists.samba.org Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows On 28 June 2012 20:15, Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com wrote: That's the point. I am pushing the idea that our problem is not using folder redirection and the Windows guy is pushing the idea that its samba itself. Spot-on. Your windows guy just needs to implement a few AD registry tweaks (see below etc) to get things working sweetly, Well, that is not going to happen. Eh -- maybe if I can persuade the boss. But I think if this is going to get fixed, I am going to have to fix it myself. But that is probably fair because I think I probably messed it up. I believe folder redirection was working at one time under my predecessor. I believe I messed it up when I built a new file server. I have a vague memory of choosing to not copy some files in the root of the netlogon share over to the new server not knowing what they were for. My predecessor left a lot of stuff just lying around. I mean, who doesn't? So I thought they were extraneous and when the domain seemed to work find for a few months, I figured it was okay to reformat the hard drive on the old server. We are just now making the switch from XP to Win7. I understand that XP and Win7 profiles are not compatible. If we have to have our Windows users (and there aren't that many) create new profiles, maybe I can make sure they get created with full folder redirection implemented. Even if we have to migrate the profiles (and I have no idea oif that is even possible) maybe we can also add the appropriate registry keys. I already know way more than I want to about Windows systems admin. Guess I'll have to learn about setting registry keys and default user profiles, etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
We are just now making the switch from XP to Win7. I understand that XP and Win7 profiles are not compatible. If we have to have our Windows users (and there aren't that many) create new profiles, maybe I can make sure they get created with full folder redirection implemented. Even if we have to migrate the profiles (and I have no idea oif that is even possible) maybe we can also add the appropriate registry keys. I believe when you enable folder redirection for the first time the files will get moved to the redirected location. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows
Well, that is not going to happen. Needs to happen for stuff to work right. Vista and Windows 7 needs to be told how to handle time stamps on Samba shares or data gets copied twice *needlessly* during the logon process. Setting up the correct registry entry *RoundUpWriteTimeOnSync* in some very simple group policy should be trivial for your windows guy and roughly double your logon speed. You all win, and he won't have broken anything. He can follow a microsoft approved technique from technet.com: http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2007/03/16/using-offline-files-with-samba-emc-servers-nas-devices.aspx or just ask him to search as follows: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=RoundUpWriteTimeOnSync and he'll be convinced. On 28 June 2012 21:08, Todor Fassl fassl@gmail.com wrote: From: Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com To: samba@lists.samba.org Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] speed of samba vs Windows On 28 June 2012 20:15, Ben Metcalfe bwmetca...@gmail.com wrote: That's the point. I am pushing the idea that our problem is not using folder redirection and the Windows guy is pushing the idea that its samba itself. Spot-on. Your windows guy just needs to implement a few AD registry tweaks (see below etc) to get things working sweetly, Well, that is not going to happen. Eh -- maybe if I can persuade the boss. But I think if this is going to get fixed, I am going to have to fix it myself. But that is probably fair because I think I probably messed it up. I believe folder redirection was working at one time under my predecessor. I believe I messed it up when I built a new file server. I have a vague memory of choosing to not copy some files in the root of the netlogon share over to the new server not knowing what they were for. My predecessor left a lot of stuff just lying around. I mean, who doesn't? So I thought they were extraneous and when the domain seemed to work find for a few months, I figured it was okay to reformat the hard drive on the old server. We are just now making the switch from XP to Win7. I understand that XP and Win7 profiles are not compatible. If we have to have our Windows users (and there aren't that many) create new profiles, maybe I can make sure they get created with full folder redirection implemented. Even if we have to migrate the profiles (and I have no idea oif that is even possible) maybe we can also add the appropriate registry keys. I already know way more than I want to about Windows systems admin. Guess I'll have to learn about setting registry keys and default user profiles, etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/**mailman/options/sambahttps://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
