On Mar 27, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Christopher Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday, March 28, 2014 07:05 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:06:00PM -0400, Harry Putnam wrote: >>> >>> What do experienced users say about it? >> I have nothing too scientific to add. smb/server has always *felt* >> slower, and it also only does SMB 1.0 (well, at least in NexentaStor >> 3.1.5, though I believe they're adding SMB 2.x support in 4.0 which >> we're looking forward to). I always kind of wondered why Samba wasn't >> used -- seems to be faster, have far more features and of course is >> quite mature. Seems like a lot of redundant effort, though perhaps >> there were some good reason (licensing, etc.?) >> >> > > It is really funny that you heard or felt that smb/server is slower. I don't > use smb/server and the one time I did, it had the lowest latency of all and > users felt it was snappy. Samba is by design and intent single threaded. This provides the easiest method to be portable to many different OSes (a good thing) The illumos in-kernel SMB server is by design and intent multithreaded. This provides the best scalable performance on multiprocessors (another good thing). I've seen workloads that need this scalability and where man-months of effort spent trying to get Samba to work were solved with a simple install of illumos. NB, it appears as though the fine folks at Nexenta have put their SMB2 source up at https://github.com/Nexenta/illumos-nexenta Knowing Gordon, I'm sure it is of high quality and scalability. -- richard -- [email protected] +1-760-896-4422 ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
