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 467920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OSX SMB goes from bad to worse?
by theosib on Sat 26th Mar 2011 04:03 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

OSX's SMB implementation is already crap. I can't count how many kernel panics I've experienced because of it. Now, we're going to get an untested from-scratch replacement? Oh, Joy! Yet another step by Apple to prevent me from using Linux or Windows servers for Time Machine backups!

Reply Score: 4

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They've had over 2 years to write and test it - and all of it according to the specifications from day one. Why do you automatically assume it is going to be crap? based on what evidence? Microsoft made some major re-writes in Windows 7 and look at what has happened, one of the best selling version of Windows of all time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

One of the best selling version of Windows of all time.

I would like to add that, unlike some "vendors" say, Windows is not sold. Windows is a property of Microsoft(r). I would also like to add that a version of Windows can increase its own percentage of the market, but at the same time the total Windows market can be decreased, because the new version mainly ate the market of prior Windows versions, and at the same time was not able to keep the total Windows percentage.

That is what would be seen in those reports:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2011-02/SquidRepor...
http://stats.wikimedia.org/archive/squid_reports/2010-10/SquidRepor...
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

It would be interesting to see an actual report from the web of Osnews.

Edited 2011-03-26 07:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

They've had over 2 years to write and test it - and all of it according to the specifications from day one. Why do you automatically assume it is going to be crap? based on what evidence? Microsoft made some major re-writes in Windows 7 and look at what has happened, one of the best selling version of Windows of all time.


Actually, Vista had those major rewrites and was one of the worst selling versions of Windows of all time. Windows 7 improved on those rewrites and "got it right" resulting in being one of the best selling versions of Windows of all time.

Rewrites that are done with only internal testing very often break when tested by the larger public. (Look at OsX 10.0 for the best proof that Apples rewrites can be very crappy)

Reply Parent Score: 3

theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

You have a good point. And I'm hopeful they've done a good job.

However, a common problem with any software development is that you just don't get some bugs until the software is out in the wild, and they can be doozies. Anything that's hard to reproduce is less likely to be caught during alpha and beta.

Reply Parent Score: 2

vocivus Member since:
2010-03-13

Apple's NFS implementation was horrible until sometime after 10.5 - and NFS has been an open spec since the 80s. I somehow doubt that they're going to come up with a reasonable 1.0 release of this mess.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Netatalk
by s_groening on Sat 26th Mar 2011 15:44 in reply to "OSX SMB goes from bad to worse?"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Netatalk
by macUser on Sat 26th Mar 2011 15:51 in reply to "Netatalk"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)


That is good to know. Can netatalk be used to serve up network homes?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Netatalk
by theosib on Sat 26th Mar 2011 19:45 in reply to "Netatalk"
theosib Member since:
2006-03-02

If you already use Linux, consider using Netatalk to serve your Time Machine backups!

After a couple of years' stagnation, development has catched up nicely. Netatalk now supports ACL's (Posix from Netatalk 2.2 (currently a beta release) and NFSv4 with ZFS (FreeBSD + Solaris/OpenSolaris) since 2.1), AFP 3.3 (Netatalk 2.2), Time Machine backups as mentioned earlier, extended attributes and network connect/reconect.

If it's Mac OS X you wish to support from Linux, AFP might be as good as (or better than) SMB, anyhow ;)


I tried using the latest version of Netatalk. I had two major problems. One is that it'll fail authentication randomly about once out of every 5 or 10 connection attempts. When I reported it, they told me they wouldn't look into unless a corporate customer had that problem. The second is that OSX will lock up hard if you put the machine to sleep in the middle of a TM backup. This is because Netatalk lacks Replay Cache, and thus, there is no solution. Without Replay Cache, the TM backup is likely to get corrupted if you sleep the machine during backup. (Unless you use sleepwatcher to unmount on sleep, which I do.)

Netatalk is NOT an option, because it's completely inadequate.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Apple's neglected Samba for the three years or so since it went GPL3.. of course it's buggy as all get out because they haven't bothered to give you any of the Samba updates since. You can thank Apple for leaving your system vulnerable the last several years too.

But, given the focus they put on there own products, the in-house developed replacement should be very usable when it ships (or did it ship already?). I don't see the inhouse implementation leaving you without updates for several years either so that's a bonus.

Reply Parent Score: 4

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

OSX's SMB implementation is already crap. I can't count how many kernel panics I've experienced because of it. Now, we're going to get an untested from-scratch replacement? Oh, Joy! Yet another step by Apple to prevent me from using Linux or Windows servers for Time Machine backups!


No. Lion's SMB2 implementation is orders faster than Snow Leopard or Leopard's support. Yes, all is relative until heavy numbers arrive.

You'll be happy.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No. Lion's SMB2 implementation is orders faster than Snow Leopard or Leopard's support.


Well, that's good as the Leopards do not support SMB2.

In any case do you know if they'll back port SMB2 to the earlier OS versions? It seems like they should to ensure a gradual transition, but Apple often doesn't support older OS versions with features from newer operating systems.

Reply Parent Score: 2