At 11:41 AM 8/23/2011 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: >On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:27:19PM -0400, [email protected] wrote: >> >From the MS documentation, it appears there might be some >> oplock support in their SMB 2.0 client. Is this the case? >> Any chance that oplock-based caching of files that are >> only read will happen on the Windows side if we install >> Samba 3.6 and enable SMB2? > >oplocks are supported in MS's default SMB1 client. >You don't need SMB2 for that. The Windows client should >already be using oplocks.
But apparently not with sufficient aggression. No doubt whatsoever that files are being read over and over again--clear as day in the network statistics. I'll guess that Windows is dropping the cached copy of network files immediately once the are closed. So it's really a question about the Windows client side, which makes me think that SMB2 vs SMB1 will make little difference for the NT6.0 kernel. The MS announcement does focus on improvements in the NT6.1 kernel with SMB2.1, so I'll have to try that at some point. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff383236%28WS.10%29.aspx Thank you for your reply. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
