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 467937
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: GPLv3
by porcel on Sat 26th Mar 2011 06:54 UTC 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[3]: GPLv3
by Laurence on Sun 27th Mar 2011 08:26 in reply to "RE[2]: GPLv3"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

Synology is just a Linux box so chances are it's running SAMBA. Thus your anecdotal evidence is complete bullshit because if SAMBA was the bottleneck, it would run at the same reduced performance regardless of whether the guest platform was XP, OS X or Linux.

In fact, unless you're specifically mounting Synology's remote share on your Linux guest, the chances are you're not even using SAMBA's FUSE modules to browse SMB shares on that box but instead whatever CIFS API's your desktop environment ships with (FYI Nautilus and KDE both have their own SMB bindings)

This is the great thing about anecdotal evidence - it's usually wrong.

Edited 2011-03-27 08:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

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