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 468039
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: GPLv3
by Laurence on Sun 27th Mar 2011 08:26 UTC 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[4]: GPLv3
by vtolkov on Sun 27th Mar 2011 17:18 in reply to "RE[3]: GPLv3"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

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.

It does. It is slow. It is processor bound.

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)

Are you saying that linux does not use samba client? Or you are saying that without fuse it run faster? There is only clear intention to insult me, but the point is not clear. Maybe fuse is a bottleneck, maybe. I do mount shares. But user measures overral experience anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: GPLv3
by Laurence on Mon 28th Mar 2011 07:39 in reply to "RE[4]: GPLv3"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


It does. It is slow. It is processor bound.

SAMBA wouldn't be maxing out your CPU, so clearly the bottleneck isn't your processor.

Are you saying that linux does not use samba client? Or you are saying that without fuse it run faster?

No, I'm saying Linux doesn't exclusively use SAMBA client. I'm saying desktop environments like GNOME and KDE have their own SMB clients built in as well.

Also, FUSE wouldn't make any difference here because your network speed is not going to be faster than the memory swapping between user space and kernel space.

Edited 2011-03-28 07:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4