similar to: Linux vs. Windows SMB buffering

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 06:09:32PM +0000, Will Lucas via samba wrote: > Hi all, > > In our office we use a program that makes many small writes to a file. We > have been trying to use this program with our NAS, which hosts a Samba > share on the network. However, the performance of the program is > staggeringly slow on Window 7, 8.1, and 10. > > To make the problem easily

> > > Does the wireshark trace show the Windows client asking for and > getting a RWH lease under SMB2 ? If so, then there's no reason > it can't be caching the entire file locally. Seems strange > behaviour from the Windows redirector here. > I have uploaded the Linux packet capture here (14MB): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UHr3GQEkQwWXJ1NjVwMkJXOEU Also,

> The Linux client is asking for SMB1 and using 1MB write sizes. > > The Windows client is using SMB2 and *NOT ASKING FOR LEASES*. > > This is why the performance is terrible. Because the file > as no lease, the Windows redirector must pass every single > WriteFile() system call onto the wire, no matter how small > the size. > > If you can get the Windows SMB2 client

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:29:43PM +0000, Will Lucas wrote: > > The Linux client is asking for SMB1 and using 1MB write sizes. > >  > > The Windows client is using SMB2 and *NOT ASKING FOR LEASES*. > >  > > This is why the performance is terrible. Because the file > > as no lease, the Windows redirector must pass every single > > WriteFile() system call

Mandi! Kacper Wirski via samba In chel di` si favelave... > I understand the OP, I was asking some time ago similar question, but it was > in relation to samba domain member. Thanks, Kacper. > I couldn't get backend: ad to work for > machine accounts, so i switched to idmap: rid and it solved everything. I > tried manually adding UID and GID to Domain Computer group and to

Hello All, I am running a CentOS 4.6 file server for a small office network and I am getting a lot of strange webdav requests from one of the Windows workstations - I have not configured Webdav on the Windows host (hereafter "windows-laptop") in question. Some details - I have configured a Samba share called (say) "share1" on the CentOS server and the windows-laptop connects

hi guys I have rather a large set of Seagate's SAS ST32000444SS, over a hundred - experience I'm having from those in conjunction with their tech support is abysmal. I'm trying to update firmware of these drives and nothing works, including tech support. ... and I cannot help but wonder - is just me who is so unlucky and getting very, very poor support(taking naturally only of

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:25:28PM +0000, Jones Syue ??? wrote: >Hello Ivan, > >'FastCopy' has an option to revise max I/O size and works for SMB :) >it is a tool for file transferring and could be installed to win10, >download here: https://fastcopy.jp/ > >This is an example for writing, a job would write a file named '1GB.img' >from a local disk

I have an old dos app that doesn't run in the win95 shell very well. There are problems with the graphics. Is it possible to connect to a samba server from real dos? I assume the answer is no but I thought I would check. Verne Ball vball@socrates.berkeley.edu

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

Bobby Eshleman wrote: > We're testing usage of vsock as a way to redirect guest-local UDS > requests to the host and this patch series greatly improves the > performance of such a setup. > > Compared to copying packets via userspace, this improves throughput by > 121% in basic testing. > > Tested as follows. > > Setup: guest unix dgram sender -> guest vsock

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Christopher Covington >> <cov at codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 09/17/2014 10:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>> Hi all- >>>>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Christopher Covington >> <cov at codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 09/17/2014 10:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>> Hi all- >>>>

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote: >On 8/21/23 11:53, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: >>>OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is >>>changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? >> >>It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ >>redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, >>per

On 8/21/23 11:53, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: >> OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is >> changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? > > It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ > redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, > per process monitor (procmon) could show that write I/O size seems > could be pass

On 8/21/23 22:55, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote: >> On 8/21/23 11:53, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: >>>> OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is >>>> changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? >>> >>> It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+

Hi, I've the following error when I want to create a conditionnal redirector in samba 4 : " server complex operation 'IpValidate' not implemented  " Version : Version 4.6.7-Ubuntu Not using bind9 but Samba 4 DNS internal Must I user bind 9 ? My goal is to create un approbation between AD2016 et samba 4. Regard -- *Hervé* *HÉNOCH* *Responsable informatique* Tél. :

16.03.2024 21:26, Ralph Boehme wrote: > On 3/16/24 18:18, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> Enabling strict renames does not change anything.? Yes it prevents from >> renaming a directory if a file is open inside.? But not renaming a plain >> file which is locked. > > oh, you mean just rename a plain file that is currently opened by some client? That is possible as long as all

Morning all... I have a Dedicated server in a data center in Germany, and it has 2 3TB drives, but only software RAID. I have got them to install VMWare ESXi and so far everything is going ok... I have the 2 drives as standard data stores... But i am paranoid... So, i installed Nexenta as a VM, gave it a small disk to boot off and 2 1Tb disks on separate physical drives... I have created a

Hi folks :-) situation: debian stable (samba version 2:3.2.5-4lenny9) from clients by ftp the transfer of huge file is about 10/11Mb/s (with an ethernet 10/100) by samba came 5/6Mb/s is it correct? In smb.conf I don't have any "strange"options: thanks Pol domain master = yes preferred master = yes os level = 65 workgroup = WORKGROUP netbios name = name Server String = name