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 467996
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hmmm
by BluenoseJake on Sat 26th Mar 2011 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmmm"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Well, that means it's still not a linux technology, it is a MS/IBM technology, which the original poster was trying to address.

Furthermore, since Windows is the only OS that natively uses SMB, it is a defacto MS technology, especially since as you noted, it continues to be developed by MS, and not IBM.

Edited 2011-03-26 16:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: hmmm
by TechGeek on Sat 26th Mar 2011 18:23 in reply to "RE[3]: hmmm"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Well, that means it's still not a linux technology, it is a MS/IBM technology, which the original poster was trying to address.

Furthermore, since Windows is the only OS that natively uses SMB, it is a defacto MS technology, especially since as you noted, it continues to be developed by MS, and not IBM.



When I said in my original post that Apple was paying Microsoft, I was not trying to imply that Microsoft owns rights to SMB. Just that Microsoft tries to collect royalties off of Linux from a lot of people.

Further, Windows is not the only OS that used SMB by default. It also is installed by default on most Linux distros.

Microsoft does NOT control SMB. They can write their own version of it, but they have to give those changes to the SAMBA team per EU sanctions.

The original article made the claim about Windows 7 SMB being more efficient...what a crock. Do a network capture of an SMB exchange versus an SMB2 exchange on Windows 7 sometime for something easy like deleting a file. SMB only uses a few packets to complete the actions. SMB2 uses hundreds. Now I will grant SMB2 may support more Windows mannerisms, but I wouldn't call that efficiency.

As for protocols, I have found iSCSI to be about the same as NFS. I get ~95% total possible bandwidth at home. So on a gigabit network, figuring in 20% overhead for the networking, you can get a maximum 800 Mbits/s or 100MB/s. I generally run around 92-95 MB/s throughput. SMB gives me a bit less, but since its what Windows can use, I live with it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: hmmm
by BluenoseJake on Sat 26th Mar 2011 21:07 in reply to "RE[4]: hmmm"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Microsoft does NOT control SMB. They can write their own version of it, but they have to give those changes to the SAMBA team per EU sanctions.


This has nothing to do with the EU, who forced an interoperability decree on MS AFTER the Samba devs had already done all the work. It was not needed because the samba devs did an awesome job, they didn't really need the documentation. Just because the EU forces MS to share the documentation does not mean that MS doesn't control the direction of SMB, as they can change it as much as they want, they just have to document it after the fact.

Further, Windows is not the only OS that used SMB by default. It also is installed by default on most Linux distros.


It may be installed by default, but it SMB is not a native file sharing technology of UNIX, NFS and it's like are. SMB is bolted on to the side of Linux, not part of the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 4