similar to: Is it possible to re-share a SMB2 filesystem for SMB1 clients?

Hi forks: I've been testing SMB2 with samba 3.6.4 performance these days, and I find a weird benchmark that SMB2 write performance is slower than SMB1 in 10Gb ethernet network. Server ----------------------- Linux: Redhat Enterprise 6.1 x64 Kernel: 2.6.31 x86_64 Samba: 3.6.4 (almost using the default configuration) Network: Chelsio T4 T420-SO-CR 10GbE network adapter RAID: Adaptec 51645 RAID

I have a classic NT4 domain with the PDC also the wins server. With the recent ransomware problem, we're trying to remove SMB1 and below protocols. However when I do this, the browse list is gone. Hosts can access properly the shares, but they have to know exactly \\machine\share in order to to connect. The same thing from a linux client: smbclient -L {PDC} -m SMB2 Domain=[{MYDOMAIN}]

Hi Samba list! I was very excited that SMB2 is finally working with samba 3.6.0 - great job!! I just know that SMB2 has a smaller command set compared to SMB1 and this, beside many other rebuilds of the code makes it faster As I am completely new to the file transfer protocol world, I want to ask a few basic things: - is Samba backward compatible ... xp can't use SMB2 as far as I

Hi all, At the moment we are running Debian squeeze with stock samba 3.5.6. and are testing some new samba installations from ubuntu 12.04, centos 6.4 and debian wheezy. All running in a VM on a XenServer. The samba servers are member of a 2008R2 domain, using smb1 protocol all are running fine and we get a constant 90MB/s (big file transfer) on our 1GB network. We would like to enable smb2

Dear all, what is about the support for POSIX ACL in Samba protocol implementation of SMB2 and SMB3? >From what I extracted from SNIA and SambaXP developer conference talks and as well as the official Samba Wiki, support for POSIX ACL in SMB2 and SMB3 has been completely abandonned. Am I right? If so, is there any other possibility to allow Linux Clients to natively access access control lists

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:22:14PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > > Looking around inside that source code I also see: > > do_read (GVfsBackend *backend, > GVfsJobRead *job, > GVfsBackendHandle handle, > char *buffer, > gsize bytes_requested) > { > GVfsBackendSmb *op_backend = G_VFS_BACKEND_SMB (backend); >

Hi everybody, having set up Samba 4.12.6 as DC on Debian 10.5 "smbclient -L dc" give me this: Enter PA\root's password: Anonymous login successful ??????? Sharename?????? Type????? Comment ??????? ---------?????? ----????? ------- ??????? sysvol????????? Disk ??????? netlogon??????? Disk ??????? IPC$??????????? IPC?????? IPC Service (Samba 4.12.6-Debian) SMB1 disabled -- no

We have a 10G network with a mix of Windows 10 and MacOS 10.12 machines, and a CentOS 7 machine. Copying large files "fast" from the CentOS machine to Windows, using SMB2 or SMB3 fails almost every time, at the end of the copy. - With SMB1, it seems to work, but is much slower. - Copying to a smb share on a Mac seems to work, but is also much slower. - Using a normal Gigabit network

Andreas, On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:37:07PM +0200, awl1 via samba wrote: > Before I follow your advice to move this whole issue/topic to the > samba-technical alias and start over there with a clean description of the > scenario and the findings, I have two simple questions: > > 1) I plan to use a new, reproducible test scenario with 2000 random small > files with a file length

Hi, I'm using libsmbclient library built from source3 directory of samba-3.6.7. When I connect to a vista/2008 server using this libsmbclient library, communication is happening in SMB1 protocol and NOT in SMB2. Please note that I've enabled SMB2 by adding following line to smb.conf max protocol = SMB2 Does libsmbclient library built from source3 directory of samba-3.6.7 supports SMB2?

Hello, This is situation: * [netApps SMB-server] [RHEL-7.1-Client]* | =SMB 2/3= | | sending data>65k Fail | sending data<65k Passes Max Write/Read Size[65535]

24.01.2023 20:09, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:38:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> >> Here we've two files open, with kernel oplocks = yes (hence it is LEASE(), - >> before I enabled kernel oplocks, it was LEASE(RH) or LEASE(RWH)). > > Kernel oplocks do not support SMB2+ LEASES. So you're > just seeing old

> > Unless you upload a network capture of you mounting and doing the ls -lR > on the client it's hard to say what really goes on. I understand you > might not want to make it public.. but if you do > This is the last thing I'll try after I've exhausted all the other options. How are you mounting your share (which mount options)? > Something weird is going on with

First off, I'm a little confused but I've been trying to do some research and still have some questions... (please forgive me!) I'm trying to figure out the "best" (ie. fastest) way to connect from Ubuntu to Windows Server 2008. I can use SMB, SMB2, or NFS.

Hi Jeremy, Hi Steve, Hi Ronnie, thanks for your replies and the profound discussion. I think, it's best to demonstrate my problem case along an real world example: The following log of a console sesssion shows how I am doing the mounts on behalf Linux Kernel CIFS-FS Module on the client side against a Samba 4.5 file server (both running on Debian Stretch 9.8) via SMB/CIFS resp. SMB2 protocol:

Hai, ... > > As I said, where is the fault, is it something that Windows 10 is or > isn't doing, or is it Samba ? > > Well, we cannot change Windows, so on that basis, I think you should > make a Samba bug report and let it work through the system. > > Rowland Well, yes, we can change windows, by allowing/disallowing SMB1. Which might help in detecting whats

>> - smbclient [no -m option] is OK and slow (uses default SMB1/NT1?) >> - mount.cifs -o vers=1.0 is OK and slow >> - smbclient -m SMB2 (or -m SMB3) fails > The above is the interesting case, as this is much > easier to debug (in user space) than the kernel > client. > > Can you give more details on *exactly* HOW smbclient -mSMB3 > fails ? This is really

I conducted many tests and I noticed that I lose the domain-join on SMB1 soon as I joined SMB2 in the domain. Step 1: SMB1 "net ads join -Uadministrator" -> OK Step 2: SMB1 "net ads testjoin" -> OK Step 3: SMB2 "net ads join -Uadministrator" -> OK Step 4: SMB2 "net ads testjoin" -> OK Step 5: SMB1 "net ads testjoin" ->

Hi Samba Users, I'm in the process of building a Samba4 CTDB /GPFS Cluster joined as a member server to AD that also supports ACL's . It has taken some time but almost everything is working now :) . My one outstanding issue is editing files using Excel 2007 on Windows 7 results in a 'Document not saved' error. I believe this is an issue with the SMB2 protocol as I can edit the same

Thanks for the first reply, Jeremy. What about the (future) implementation of RichACL? Will there be any native Linux Client support along with the SMB2/SMB3 protocol? I know, there is a native implemenation for RichACLs in ext4 FS. Unfortunately, smbcals is not a native Linux ACL Tool and has a very unhandy syntax. I just tested some days ago. ;-) I am looking for a solution that allows the