Why SMB2 need asynchronous architecture ?

[Volker Lendecke]

On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 01:52:14AM +0000, Jim wrote:
> Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke <at> SerNet.DE> writes:
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:57:59PM +0000, Jim wrote:
> > > 
> > > Start from samba-3.6, SMB2 use asynchronous architecture. 
> > > 
> > > I don't understand why it benefits the performance of network 
> application in 
> > > Windows 7,  and what kinds of network application can be benefited ?
> > > 
> > > In my testing in windows7, SMB2 performance is worse than SMB1. (Test 
> with 
> > > explorer and robocopy)
> > 
> > In theory, SMB2 has larger packets and less requests,
> > leading to higher performance. We have seen reports that
> > SMB2 is slower because by default signing is being used in
> > SMB2 and not in SMB1. Can you check that?
> > 
> > If that is not the case for you, we need to see why you are
> > seeing worse performance with SMB2.
> > 
> > Volker
> > 
> 
> Hi, Volker:
>      
>      I use the following command to do the test.
>      robocopy %pc_source%\5GB %syno_target%\ /E /IS /NS /NC /NP /NFL /NDL 
> 
>      I think signature is off because 'Signature' value of SMB2 header is 
> always 0 during the test. 
> 
>      Test environment:
>           - CPU: Intel Atom CPU D2700, DDR3 1GB.
>           - Samba version is 3.6.9

Is it possible that you try Samba 4.0.x? We have done some
changes to the Samba packet handling, requiring less
syscalls.

With best regards,

Volker Lendecke

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de