Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 467915
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPLv3
by vtolkov on Sat 26th Mar 2011 03:04 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

Obviously, it is scary to rely on GPLv3, so Apple will try to replace all GPLv3 software eventually. XCode 4 uses LLVM already, dumping Gnu compilers, Samba is next. And existing Samba is damn slow, comparing with Windows built-in networking, so I'm glad it will be replaced, hope it will be faster.

Reply Score: -1

RE: GPLv3
by porcel on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:54 in reply to "GPLv3"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Saying that Samba is slow is complete utter bullshit. Those of us that use it daily in large networks know otherwise.

Stop spreading FUD to support the agenda of your employer.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: GPLv3 - fast for me also
by jabbotts on Sat 26th Mar 2011 15:20 in reply to "RE: GPLv3"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Much faster than sftp at least though that may be due to lack of encryption in the protocol.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: GPLv3
by vtolkov on Sat 26th Mar 2011 17:16 in reply to "RE: GPLv3"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

I use it daily at home. My photo-collection is sitting on Synology server, and I access it from all my home computers, including MacOS and Ubuntu. The slowest machine is Windows Xp, but access is fastest, i guess, because of intensive caching. So i use NFS on unix machines, it is also slow, but seems a bit faster.
I do not want to comment employer thing, it is a fud.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: GPLv3
by gerg on Tue 29th Mar 2011 16:45 in reply to "RE: GPLv3"
gerg Member since:
2011-03-16

Agreed.

SAMBA has a long and very well documented history of stomping Microsoft at file sharing performance via SMB. Last I really looked (admittedly, some time ago), it was frequently by as much as 30% or better performance.

Saying SAMBA is slow is like saying Microsoft's own is glacial.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: GPLv3
by leech on Sat 26th Mar 2011 17:17 in reply to "GPLv3"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

It's actually been my experience that the opposite is true. A Windows to Windows copy is slower than a Windows to Linux or even a Linux to Linux (though why you'd use Samba between two Linux machines, I'll never know. It's like some people I know using SMB to communicate between an IBM AS/400 and Linux. Apparently they weren't aware of NFS, or the billion other ways of setting it up.)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: GPLv3
by vtolkov on Sat 26th Mar 2011 17:31 in reply to "RE: GPLv3"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

It's actually been my experience that the opposite is true. A Windows to Windows copy is slower than a Windows to Linux or even a Linux to Linux (though why you'd use Samba between two Linux machines, I'll never know.

The reason is, probably, is that windows reserves part of the band, something about 30%, for other communications. And performance will depend from file size. It is particularly slow with small files. In our scenarios th difference would be with servers: i have slow server and fast clients, you, probably, fast server.

Actually for backups I use rsync. It is the fastest way, if you configure it correctly, and it is available on all platforms. And it uses entire band on windows.

Sorry for typos, typed on ipad.

Reply Parent Score: 0