search for: 30282470

I disabled client signing from the client side, via OS X's global nsmb.conf file: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30282470#30282470 The performance was back to over 600 MB/s, as compared to 60 MB/s with signing. It just seems a bit weird to me that Apple, in response to the Badlock bug, would have changed the OS X client default to something with such drastic performance implications, without much notice. My contact...

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:44:26PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote: > I disabled client signing from the client side, via OS X's global nsmb.conf > file: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30282470#30282470 > > The performance was back to over 600 MB/s, as compared to 60 MB/s with > signing. > > It just seems a bit weird to me that Apple, in response to the Badlock bug, > would have changed the OS X client default to something with such drastic > performance implication...

Would signing cause a performance hit by an order of magnitude though? Is that expected behavior? If so, then it seems worth it to disable signing from the client, given that this is just a NAS on a LAN, not connected to the Internet. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:20 PM Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:08:40PM -0400, Seth Goldin wrote: > > I'm

2016-06-02 8:48 GMT+02:00 Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de>: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:44:26PM +0000, Seth Goldin wrote: > > I disabled client signing from the client side, via OS X's global > nsmb.conf > > file: https://discussions.apple.com/message/30282470#30282470 > > > > The performance was back to over 600 MB/s, as compared to 60 MB/s with > > signing. > > > > It just seems a bit weird to me that Apple, in response to the Badlock > bug, > > would have changed the OS X client default to something with such dra...