similar to: Samba 4 Client Directory Contents Refresh

Thank you for the reply. I would prefer a RHEL 7 Samba 4 directive to address this. Like a global directive. We have a good amount of Windows workstations of different version involved, I do not want to have to change them all. We do not use AD (large workgroup). I have only tested with Windows 7 (my workstation). My concern is merely a difference in behavior between RHEL 5 (Samba 3), and

Looks like you didn't really understand Marc's answer. This depends on settings on the Windows client. On the server side, this is not a question of changing behaviour, it's a question of Samba 4 supporting a new feature, SMBv2. I suppose that the only thing you can do on the server side is setting max protocol to SMBv1, which is really bad for performance and for security. People

Looks like you didn't really understand Marc's answer. This depends on settings on the Windows client. On the server side, this is not a question of changing behaviour, it's a question of Samba 4 supporting a new feature, SMBv2. I suppose that the only thing you can do on the server side is setting max protocol to SMBv1, which is really bad for performance and for security. People

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew why there would be so many Samba (smbd) processes running on my SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 system? I found an awful lot of them running, much more that what I would expect given the number of Windows PC's on the network. One of the users was having trouble accessing a file on the SCO system, and that is when I discovered this. I actually had to write a program

Hello Rick, Am 17.01.2018 um 20:20 schrieb rcone via samba: > Starting to use Samba 4 on RHEL 7. I noticed that new files do not > get refreshed automatically for display in a Windows directory listing > on Samba 4, and requires a manual refresh in Windows for them to> appear. This behavior appears to be different from RHEL 5 (Samba 3), > where new files appear automatically. Is

> > > 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,

Hi Marc, I'm a little confused. The values I provided for client and server max protocol are default values. At least according to the command 'samba-tool testparm -v'. I have not explicitly set them in my smb.conf file. I assume SMB3 became the default at some point with a release? I'm worried now that I must make explicit changes to my smb.conf file when default values are

Hello, My DC smb.conf currently has the following set server max protocol = NT1 server min protocol = CORE client max protocol = NT1 client min protocol = CORE Is it safe to change both the client and server max to = SMB3? What about on member servers? Should I be concerned with anything breaking? I'm using Windows 7 clients to authenticate against Ubuntu

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

hi All, We have a glusterfs cluster with 5 nodes on Ubuntu 12.04 amd64. We use this smb.conf: [global] socket options = IPTOS_THROUGHPUT TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=131072 SO_RCVBUF=131072 read raw = yes server string = %h write raw = yes #oplocks = yes max xmit = 131072 dead time = 15 getwd cache = yes use sendfile=yes block size = 131072 load printers = no aio read size

> 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

Hello, We are moving to RHEL 7 with Samba 4, and XFS file systems with ACL turned on by default. We come from RHEL 5 Samba 3 with no ACL activated, on file systems. Initially anyway, we do not want ACL support activated, in order to initially preserve legacy. Our shares will have these directives: force user = dl4ub force group = dl4ub create mode = 0000 force create mode = 0660 directory

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 'H:' to a remote SMB mounted net disk 'Z:', open 'FastCopy' tool and specify

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 repeatable, I created a small C++ program to just write 1 million lines to a file:

Hello, Is there any straightforward way to see whether Samba is using "asynchronous i/o"? In other words, if you specify in smb.conf to use aio for all transfers larger than 1 KB (pretty much everything), how can you tell that aio is actually being used? Are there any counters in Linux or in some samba logs that you can see incrementing over time? Thanks in advance. -- Andy

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 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 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+

Hello Jeremy, > 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 from the application layers,

I'm working with Samba on Ubuntu. We recently upgrade to Ubuntu 14.04 and with it Samba 3.6.3 to 4.1.6 (Version: 2:4.1.6+dfsg-1ubuntu2.14.04.3). Since the upgrade, the mapped network drives on Windows do not refresh the shared files. It maps to the location without any problems and you can look at the content of the share. If you exit the window and then create a new file or even touch an