Samba 3 socket status after [RST, ACK]

[simo]

On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:52 +0100, Petr Sumbera wrote:
> Hi Alison,
> 
> Alison Winters wrote:
> > FWIW we're currently working around this by only running Samba on port
> > 139 (smb ports config option).  Running only on 445 makes browsing break.
> 
> Thanks, it really avoids those messages.
> 
> > I'd be very interested to see performance figures of running Samba only
> > on 139 vs both ports.  I'm guessing the connect will be faster because
> > 445 will be dropped by the kernel straight away, but perhaps there is
> > significant transport overhead in NBT vs raw TCP?
> 
> Yes, it would be interesting to see some benchmarks. I will check 
> whether we are capable of doing anything with it.

There is no much overhead ( here a quick descritpion of the differences:
http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.1.2 ). But the client may behave
differently based on what ports it binds to (445 available means the
server is win2k like, while 139 only is a strong indication that the
remote server is of NT class).

> Don't you know whether there is any other limitation when using port 139 
> only?

I am not aware of any relevant limitation.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
http://samba.org