On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:15:03PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia via samba wrote:> > You have a Mac. As much as I appreciate Samba's power and > sophistication, especially to replace Active Directory controllers > with a powerful service today, do you have a compelling reason to use > CIFS over NFS? NFS, as life turns out, may not be as performant. I > acknowledge that CIFS has improved over time. But NFS mixed case > filesystems correctly, which CIFS never will for legacy reasons. (You > can't put two files in the same directory, one named "makefile" and > the other named "Makefile".) And it can be notably less complex toWell, that's not true for the planned SMB3+ UNIX extensions, which will allow this to work. There's a test tree on samba.org that implenents this and Steve French's SMB3 kernel client is implementing the client-side of things. Steve (Samba Team member) works for Microsoft now, so whilst this isn't an official Microsoft endorsement of these changes, it is certainly a positive step for Linux. We're being much more careful than we were with the gung-ho SMB1 UNIX extensions, paying much more attention to correctness and security, but it's a glimpse of where we're planning to get to.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:15:03PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia via samba wrote: > > > > You have a Mac. As much as I appreciate Samba's power and > > sophistication, especially to replace Active Directory controllers > > with a powerful service today, do you have a compelling reason to use > > CIFS over NFS? NFS, as life turns out, may not be as performant. I > > acknowledge that CIFS has improved over time. But NFS mixed case > > filesystems correctly, which CIFS never will for legacy reasons. (You > > can't put two files in the same directory, one named "makefile" and > > the other named "Makefile".) And it can be notably less complex to > > Well, that's not true for the planned SMB3+ UNIX extensions, > which will allow this to work. There's a test tree on samba.org > that implements this and Steve French's SMB3 kernel client is implementing > the client-side of things. Steve (Samba Team member) works for Microsoft > now, so whilst this isn't an official Microsoft endorsement of these > changes, it is certainly a positive step for Linux.That does sound interesting, and potentially quite useful. I assume it requires support on both the fileserver and on the clients to support successful handling of mixed case files.> We're being much more careful than we were with the gung-ho SMB1 > UNIX extensions, paying much more attention to correctness and > security, but it's a glimpse of where we're planning to get to.That's great. Not yet in place for the MacOS CIFS mounting tools, though, right?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 09:37:59PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:15:03PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia via samba wrote: > > > > > > You have a Mac. As much as I appreciate Samba's power and > > > sophistication, especially to replace Active Directory controllers > > > with a powerful service today, do you have a compelling reason to use > > > CIFS over NFS? NFS, as life turns out, may not be as performant. I > > > acknowledge that CIFS has improved over time. But NFS mixed case > > > filesystems correctly, which CIFS never will for legacy reasons. (You > > > can't put two files in the same directory, one named "makefile" and > > > the other named "Makefile".) And it can be notably less complex to > > > > Well, that's not true for the planned SMB3+ UNIX extensions, > > which will allow this to work. There's a test tree on samba.org > > that implements this and Steve French's SMB3 kernel client is implementing > > the client-side of things. Steve (Samba Team member) works for Microsoft > > now, so whilst this isn't an official Microsoft endorsement of these > > changes, it is certainly a positive step for Linux. > > That does sound interesting, and potentially quite useful. I assume it > requires support on both the fileserver and on the clients to support > successful handling of mixed case files. > > > We're being much more careful than we were with the gung-ho SMB1 > > UNIX extensions, paying much more attention to correctness and > > security, but it's a glimpse of where we're planning to get to. > > That's great. Not yet in place for the MacOS CIFS mounting tools, though, right?No, don't think Apple are planning to implement the SMB3+ unix stuff.