max xmit default to 0x4104 (16644). Why ...
Christopher R. Hertel
crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Mon Nov 3 22:07:40 GMT 2003
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:56:48PM -0800, Don McCall wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I've forgotten a lot about this, admittedly. It was a wierd one.
> I think we went with that default, 'cause it was what we observed the
> Win2k server responding with at the time;
I observed the same thing using a simple SMB Echo test. If the size of
the Echo block was too large (16611, in this case, but that excludes the
SMB header) then W2K SP6 would shut down the TCP connection.
> made it configurable just because the 'default' had changed over various
> windows incarnations,( part of what some of the q articles mentioned
> were about, I think) and who knew when they would change it again. This
> way we could tune to what made sense empirically, and if new server
> behavior dictated, we COULD change the default for a future release
> relatively easily...
> So if default behavior of the latest server has changed, maybe it's time
> to revisit this again. I would think that we would want to keep the
> default at whatever the current 'most used windows server' technology
> at this time is doing, though. And I *think* that would mean win2k sp6
> right now, with all the security stuff that has been rolled in, I think
> most people are using the sp6 version if they are using win2k...
> Hope this helps,
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.org
More information about the samba-technical